;)
Church Discipline Applies to Non-Members
Posted by Andrew Wencl in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
What should we do with people who profess to be Christians, attend regularly but haven’t joined the church, and have now gotten themselves involved in a major scandal? Should the church respond? If so, how?
Perhaps a common enough scenario would be the high school student who has sex and either gets pregnant or gets somebody else pregnant. These things usually don’t go hidden for long. Or maybe it is the couple in your church that decides to get a divorce. Or it could be the middle-aged or elderly couple that doesn’t want to get married because they could lose out on a pension or inheritance, so they just decide to live together instead.
I believe that church membership rolls and covenants are positive things. Although it is unlikely early believers signed a church covenant, accountability and church discipline was practiced in the early church. The problem I see in some churches is that if someone hasn’t officially joined or signed a church covenant, we treat them as though they have some kind of diplomatic immunity or as though they are outside of our church’s jurisdiction. They can attend for years, enjoying all the privileges (minus voting and serving), but never having the accountability. Yet the New Testament never teachers or implies that Christians can somehow be non-members of a church and thus exempt from Church discipline.
I believe 1 Corinthians 5 speaks to the issue of sinful members and non-members alike, and we had better take heed. Here are some principles I’ve pulled from this chapter and I believe they apply to both members and non- and how we address them when they’ve sinned:
1. Ignoring sin is shameful. Celebrating it is wicked.
A guy in my youth group had gotten involved in marijuana and I found out about it through his family. I ran into him in the bathroom and talked with him about it. I explained that it was wrong, unhealthy, and dangerous. I let him know that I loved him and that the gospel of Christ offered him hope. The guy and I were never close, but I was close to his sisters and I felt I could talk to him personally about it as a friend. A church leader who saw us talking approached me later and expressed his disappointment that I would take it upon myself to talk to the guy and reminded me we shouldn’t be judgmental, as if confronting someone about their sin was pharisaical. I don’t know if anyone else ever talked to him, but I don’t think the church leadership ever did. While I was in college I found out he died of a drug overdose.
Unlike the church which apparently did nothing, the Corinthians celebrated their tolerance of a man who was apparently in a sexual relationship with his stepmother. The Corinthians boasted, probably in their Christian “liberty.” Others boast in their “acceptance” of all people. But there is a difference between being a friend of sinners and being a friend of sin. More on that in a moment.
The proper response to sin in the church is expressed in 1 Corinthians 5:2—“Ought you not rather to mourn?” Ignoring sin is shameful. Celebrating it is wicked. Mourning is the right response to sin.
2. Unrepentant sin has no place in the church.
The church cannot tolerate open defiance of God from those who claim to be believers, whether members or not. The next half of verse two says, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” Paul lists several reasons for such a harsh action:
a. Feigned belief is no assurance.
Paul exercises his apostolic office here and pronounces summary judgment: the man must be removed. This wasn’t just taking his name off the membership or taking away a leadership position. This was a demanded physical absence from the gathered church. Why? See verse five: “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Salvation is not found in church attendance and it is not measured by a checked box on a bulletin insert. People who so blatantly live in rebellion against God need a wakeup call to make them really question their belief in God.
A friend of mine admitted to adultery and Facebook of all places was alive with activity. Some people said they were disappointed in her. Others were quick to quote Matthew 7:1. I bypassed Facebook and phoned her to chat. She was unsure if she should stay with her husband or go with the man with whom she had cheated. She knew my opinion on the matter, so I instead talked about following God, living for Him, and seeking forgiveness and restoration in the gospel. At the end of the conversation she said, “I know what you believe, but I… don’t… care.” After years of faking the Christian walk she finally came to the realization that she was not a Christian. Though I hope she comes to know and believe the truth, faith was never a possibility while she pretended to be one.
b. Rebellion is contagious and contaminates
Sin is nothing less than all out rebellion against our Creator. When Christians live openly in sin, or refuse to repent when sin comes out, it is doubly heinous. Paul asks in verse six: “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” When sin is tolerated, much less celebrated, it encourages others to sin as well. So even though it is doubtful that many more people in Corinth were going to shack up with their stepmothers, the libertine message the church was sending encouraged others to demean the sacrifice of Christ, our Passover lamb (v7).
3. Distinguish between the lost and the lost hypocrite
Christians will forever be surrounded by those whose lives are characterized by rebellion against God. Both non-believers and false believers need to be reached with the gospel. But those who claim to be believers and who live in defiance of God need to be told to stop pretending. Those who are lost but are interested in learning about our faith should be given the opportunity to come and see our worship gatherings. Christians should associate with and try to reach homosexuals, Muslims, ex-convicts, and whoever else we find who doesn’t believe in Christ. Jesus was not ashamed to associate with tax collectors and sinners.
But Jesus was very harsh with the Pharisees. In our rush to judge the Pharisees, we often forget that they were just as lost as those tax collectors and sinners. Jesus was harsher with them because they didn’t realize they were lost. Whether we think they are true believers or not, people who profess to be Christians and live in open defiance of Christ should not be permitted to join in our fellowship with each other and our worship of God.
Paul’s words should not be watered down and they should not be negated by “non-member” status when he says in verse ten, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
One last note on distinguishing between the lost person and the hypocrite: we should not judge the lost. We can certainly tell them they are sinners in need of a Savior, but we should not expect them to live like a Christian. Recently some people were complaining about a man who sat off to himself in our church service and didn’t sing. They knew he wasn’t a Christian, but this bothered them. When someone brought it to my attention, I said, “Look, I’d rather he sit comfortably by himself in silence and see how we live for and love God than to have him stand and sing songs of worship to a God he doesn’t believe in.”
4. Always have the goal in mind
The goal is reconciliation. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8:
Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.
Churches that either tolerate or celebrate sin want to see the person restored to the fellowship. But they don’t want to go through the hard and necessary steps to get there. I have directed my article here against those who tolerate and celebrate sin. But there are many who are quick to condemn and fail to distinguish between the lost and the hypocrite. If the former are prone to reintegrate the fallen brother too quickly, the latter are prone to not reintegrate him soon enough.
The goal is always the reconciliation of the offender. When true repentance has been shown and forgiveness sought, the church must turn to comfort the one now afflicted with sorrow. We are to reaffirm our love for our prodigal brother and begin the process of building him back up in the faith.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
I strongly believe in church membership, however, when I think of the early church I don’t see it as a membership issue when it comes to church discipline. The leaders are to protect the flock of God from wolves, open sin, the double-minded and false teachers. I keep going back to Acts 6:4 (“but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”) and believe that discipline begins with leadership strong in the spirit and ministry of the word, not just strong leadership. Once the church has been discipled in the work of the ministry, which includes discipline, the issue of addressing sin is done properly. As a layman, I have always mentioned things to people who are straying or show no spirituality. I begin the conversation as if they are a Christian and ask some simple questions about what they think about how God expects a Christian to walk. That is when the distance begins. I make sure my presence is made in a very friendly way and I try to get next to them as often as I see them in church. People know me in the church and if they are not walking with God they seem to be very uncomfortable when I approach. Therefore, I mingle much among that crowd. When it comes down to actually addressing an issue that affects me, I follow Matthew 18:15 until restoration. I believe restoration has to occur between Believers even if it takes 20 or 30 years. If not, then I have to make an assumption that the person(s) is non-Christian or awaiting God’s discipline/judgment.
You have made some very good points and I think it would be great if our churches would disciple their mature, even deacons, without fear of creating church police. I think it would be easier to correct church police than allowing the church to have an apathetic eye toward sin. We certainly are commanded to love one another and love must be expanded more so we understand that there is an involvement each of us has in each other.
Bottom line, yes, we should have the Spirit enough to sense the sin before it is even exposed. We should expect all who would spend time with believers to maintain a respect for holy living and address their sin even though they are not “members”. Remember, shepherds protect the flock of God from wolves and the flock cries out when one has slipped in. Occasionally, there is irreversible damage; then again, David and Bathsheba were a part of Christ’s linage, too.
One of my favorite topics since I have had much experience in it. Not that I am expert, but, I have believed in it and therefore jumped in the snake pit a little ignorant before. Wish more people would step forward and do this most important service for the church. It really changes you and conforms you to the image of Christ over time.
Excellent post. You hear constant whinning from moderate christians about how mean spirited Christians in the SBC were for kicking out Broadway and churches like them, for instance. However, scripture makes clear that a church is responsible for calling professing Christians who are living in open sin to repent and that a church that won’t do that is not a real church–well, maybe in the CBF, but it’s not a Christian church.
As you said in your point 1, ignoring sin is shameful and celebrating it is wicked.
Back to church membership; try to purge the membership rolls in the average SBC church and see what happens. It doesn’t matter if they have been on the roll since 1969 and were only active for a month, you better not touch them because there is a lottery chance that they may wander back to the fold and get right with God. Maybe, it would be good to instruct active church members in the truth of this discipline issue and begin with the church rolls. There may be someone attached to the church through its membership that is hindering the Spirit from working in the leadership, individuals, families, church community and church vision. Satan could have a strong hold on the church, too. Remember, someone simply hid some gold and silver spoilage in the camp and that sin kept God from allowing them to triumph over their enemies (Joshua 7:10-26). We should take holiness seriously or get out of the church business. Until leadership and active members take it seriously, no one else will. The church will simply continue to drift on the open sea of mediocrity.
Andrew,
I agree with your basic premise here, and think we, as churches, and as individual believers, need to do much more to keep each other accountable, and to admonish one another in the faith.
I can’t help but wonder, though, if underlying this problem is a tendency to look on church primarily as a relatively large gathering where we are all seated in rows looking toward someone up front, and never really get to know the person sitting in front of us, and the person behind us.
I am not saying there is not a time and a place for larger meetings where we gather to sing and listen to biblical exposition. But church is (or, ought to be) primarily relationships; it is putting into practice the “one anothers” of the NT.
In small groups, the question is not so much, who is a “member” and who is not. It is, however, who is a believer and who is not. And, it is knowing one another, and getting into each other’s lives, and keeping each other accountable.
Before I saw this blog this morning, traveling in North Alabama I noticed this on a church marquee:
We are called to be witnesses, not judges and lawyers.
Kinda wish they had added politicians as well.
At same time I wonder how any of you are willing to apply Andrew Wencl’s template to the High Profile Ministers of the SBC Charles Marsh called out in Wayward Christian Soldiers??
Ah, yes, good ol’ “Do not judge”–the liberal trump card. Of course, unfortunantly for libs, it doesn’t mean what they claim it does.
OK, I’m going to jump the rails and see if I can get this conversation fired up a little bit.
Thanks to American Individualism, it is more the norm for people to church hop than stay with their community of faith for life. In the third world where community is very important and your family, friends, business associates, church members, teachers, doctors, etc. are all part of the same village, public shunning as a church discipline tool has an effect of changing unwanted behavior through social isolation and ostracism. In the US, there is no such practice as shunning that I have seen. Ever. Even if a member is booted out of the local church, he is still free to participate in every other aspect of the community. For that matter, “ostracized” members will still probably call on their friends from the church and expect a warm reception because no one really holds one another accountable for such deeds, particularly in a climate where Tolerance is king. I cannot conceive of how in our modern society church shunning could even take place, let alone be effective.
In America where mobility is the norm and there are very few common social circles – the people I work with are scattered from Washington DC to Washington state and I rarely see them face to face, the people I most often buy my goods and services from are in surrounding towns, the people in my neighborhood are seen generally only at school functions, and the people at church are seen only on Sundays and Wednesdays – ostracism as a means of social control just flat out isn’t possible. What are the consequences to the individual if they are denied communion with a local church? Pretty much next to nothing as they can just pop over to the next church. They can still keep their friends at the old church or form new ones, whichever they please. In a culture mad about Church Growth, dipping fish out of someone else’s aquarium and welcoming them into full fellowship and participation with NO investigation as to why they are leaving is the norm, not the exception any more. Church hopping doesn’t hurt their business, their children’s education, their social activities, or the access to goods and services in the community.
The problem with most discussions on church discipline is that the emphasis on “do we or don’t we?” with little regard to the object of discipline and what constitutes an effective method for achieving that objective. It used to be in the old days (when I was young), a visit from the pastor and a deacon or two was a Bad Thing. Why? Because it was accompanied by shame for having done something disgraceful. It was generally known that word would be out that you had been caught in whatever it was that you were doing and you would be embarrassed to show your face next Sunday unless you got things right. The examples you cite above, Andrew, are exactly what church discipline should be – confrontation of what is wrong and reconciliation to what is right. Yet today we somehow consider it wrong to employ shame, even in a church context.
Regarding church discipline, without the power of shame or social ostracism, church discipline of the sort we are accustomed to (by rumor, if not by observation) based on shunning and ostracism needs to be re-evaluated for effectiveness. If it does not achieve the purpose of making the sinful ashamed of their sinful deeds, repentant, and godly, then I’m not sure why we would want to do it. Paul’s emphasis in 1 and 2 Corinthians is not on excluding members, but on changing behavior. I’m glad to see the conversation on church discipline here is focused on bringing people to repentance, not just on why we don’t do it any more.
Rick,
We can leave shunning, social isolation and ostracism to the Jehovah Witnesses since they practice that exclusively. I heard that they make those who are being disciplined sit on the back row. It’s just the opposite in an SBC church because those people on the back row usually shun everyone else anyway and are the first to leave when the service is over.
One of the things we don’t recognize or apply in discipline is “binding or loosing” (Matt 18:18-20) of the individual. Maybe I do not understand what that means and someone can explain it to me. It would seem to me that discipline in that arena would cause us to rely mainly upon God to work out the discipline rather than our just disengaging a person from our “Christian” fellowship. I also thought that “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector” meant that we distance ourselves from God’s discipline toward the person (Eph 5:6,7) in order to protect our character and bodily harm. Personal testimony: I’ve addressed an issue with a pastor who decided not to do what a committee submitted and the church approved. He and the chairman of the deacons pushed their agenda through like the Health Care plan. After I approached the pastor and was told nothing was changing I prayed and “bound” that sin upon him (3 meetings later). Two (2) months later the chairman of the deacons fell through the roof of the church and died. The pastor and his wife contracted cancer within two (2) months of each other. He and I reconciled not long after that. That was just the highlights but I believe the discipline of God was what brought the reconciliation.
This subject can be expanded much more and is a vital part of controlling how sin enters and exits the church. It is also vital to balancing our faith.
Good response, Rick.
Wow, good conversatin’!
David,
I definitely agree that smaller group interaction is where accountability thrives best. When we invest in each other’s lives were are more likely to take responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the group. We use the corporateness (is that a word?) of Sunday mornings as an excuse not to get to know each other. But, unfortunately, small groups and strong bonds don’t always mean discipline is practiced.
Rick,
It would appear that in “honor” cultures, excommunication may have a special affect on church members and those who are under church discipline. Yet I believe it can be equally effective here, if only it were practiced more often.
One of the biggest benefits is that people who are Christians in name only will not be treated like they are Christians. It does no good to our fellowships to have unregenerate people masquerading as believers and it does no good to the lost if we treat them like they’re saved.
And even if it isn’t successful at bringing them back to reconciliation, at least there’s no more deceit, no condoning attitude toward sin, and no more pretending. If they go to another church and they are accepted there, shame on them and pity on that church. But we can’t judge our church’s success with church discipline by what other churches do with those who’ve left our fellowship in poor standing.
I agree with your conclusion, Andrew. We should not judge the church’s success with discipline by what others do with those who leave the fellowship.
We should judge the success with discipline by the number, depth, and longevity of those we restore, right?
So how is that working out?
I don’t mean any disrespect here, and certainly this is not meant to be taken personally. I’m just saying that I’ve not seen a lot of press about successful church discipline initiatives or profiles of pastors who have made tremendous strides in reconciliation. Would anyone care to explain why BP hasn’t been covering all these success stories?
I suspect it has more to do with what is cited in this article, than anything else: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-paul-religion-secularism-20101027,0,6254681.story IMO, and FWIW, I think the major and minor prophets have been neglected way too long from our pulpits and if we want to see a real change in our churches, we need to focus less on a Pauline/Calvinistic Christianity (NTTAWWT) and more on the warnings and remedies offered by everyone from Isaiah through Malachi.
We should judge the success with discipline by the number, depth, and longevity of those we restore, right?
Not really. Although we have to be sure that we have the end goal in mind and are striving for repentance and reconciliation, Bruce’s point shine through—God has to work in the person.
Instead, we should judge the church’s success in church discipline on whether or not discipline is carried out. Are people held accountable or is everyone an island? Is repentance and reconciliation expected from those who live in defiance of God while calling themselves a brother or do we disassociate with them? Do we permit “nominal” Christians to fellowship with us or do we challenge them with the gospel to identify where they stand?
The article you mention has little to do with church discipline and has more to do with a sociological analysis of why cultural Christianity is dying; i.e., why fewer people are self-identifying as Christians. This is really a different topic, and I’m thinking about addressing it in a subsequent post, but I for one wish cultural Christianity would die. When our focus is on how many people self-identify as Christians we make no distinction between the regenerate and the hypocrite. Many of the methods, strategies, and seminars today about church planting and evangelism focus on getting people to self-identify as Christians and attracting the unregenerate who self-identify as Christians but who’ve left the church to come back. What we end up doing is filling our churches with more cultural Christians (see “lost hypocrites” in the article) than with truly regenerated people. That is both a stimulus and result of the failure of church discipline.
“We should judge the success with discipline by the number, depth, and longevity of those we restore, right?”
Not really. Although we have to be sure that we have the end goal in mind and are striving for repentance and reconciliation, Bruce’s point shine through—God has to work in the person.
I’ll have to differ with you on this one, Andrew. The object in Paul’s writing to the Corinthians is restoration, not separation. This is affirmed in both 1 and 2 Corinthians. Are we not as disciplinarians the means to this end? Sure, it depends on God, but can’t we trust God enough to believe that if we do what He says, we will get the results he promises? I’m just sayin’ that your reply seems to justify failed restoration efforts and I don’t see that supported by scripture. If you can show me where, “God didn’t call me to restore sinners to fellowship; he just called me to discipline them,” I’ll go quietly, but it seems to me we are glorifying the process instead of glorifying the end.
I don’t discipline my children just because “that’s what good parents do.” I discipline my children to make them into responsible adults. If churches discipline members & non-members because “that’s what good churches do,” then they have missed Paul’s point when he says, “Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, 11so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.”
David and Andrew (and everybody so far), I think you guys have hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between hypocrites and the lost world, and smaller groups are where the accountability is possible.
We have to reconcile the countless verses that speak about church discipline with verses like 1 Cor 5:9-10 and others that use the “in the world, but not of the world” approach.
I think a possible solution that takes both the smaller group and the issue of discipline into account would be the practice of the early church. I do not have a reference for this, sorry, I heard it in a lecture in seminary, and for the life of me I can’t recall the man’s name. I just said it yesterday too…Maybe I am getting old.
My professor said that one of the practices of the early church was to meet as a group for the reading and teaching of Scripture, which could last hours by itself, then to dismiss all non-members and have only the professing, baptized believers who had been through up to two years (some places) of what amounts to a catechism in that initial gathering. The smaller group would eat the Lord’s Supper, pray with each other, admonish, exhort, etc. I would say the smaller gathering would be the part where you wouldn’t want to seem tolerant of hypocrisy for all the biblical reasons you all have already mentioned.
We could do this already in most churches with a bit of tweaking. Although it could make Sunday School seem a bit like a frequent flyer’s club. The real issue would be that a lot of preachers would have to purposefully adjust to a different audience, with a totally different tone in some instances. And you would be accused of becoming a “seeker church”. Gasp. As if that isn’t the point of all evangelism already.
That’s just my two cents. Great post.
Just a side note on Rick’s “shunning” idea. Rick says it’s impossible in the modern age. I partly agree, because I know people who get made at all the Baptists in my town so now they’re Church of God. That part we can’t control, but I think the issue of not tolerating the hypocrisy that brings a bad reputation isn’t an issue if the person is no longer associated with your entire denomination.
That being said, why not really get this internet thing working for us? We always talk about “moving your letter” when you move churches, why not just stick every member in a database so you can really check on them? It wouldn’t have to be elaborate privacy act stuff, and we all know about comment moderation online, just to keep it fair.
That way if some guy starts talking smack about his last church, you can check up and see what the leadership has to say. It could be something like Amazon.com too, where both the “product” (member) and the commenter (member’s church leader) have a rating.
Maybe I shouldn’t have said that…I might have just lost my money-making idea…
Ok, last one I promise. If you take the idea of the second gathering only “membership” from my first comment, and put it with the online thing from my second comment, you could really solve your problem. A church shouldn’t be ashamed to list its members online (until some persecution really starts, but I know some of those people in those countries, and they’d proudly do it anyway).
That way, if you’ve got some “shunned” person sitting in on your teaching/preaching session and you don’t want rumors going around that you’ve accepted him into your “gathering”, people can just check your church website and see if he’s listed. Problem solved.
he only people that would have a problem with that are the ones who think their jobs would discriminate if their name showed up–which tells you what kind of a light they’re being already, if their coworkers have to find out they’re a Christian because of some website roster. Those people need to pick a team anyway, and honestly, Jesus said his followers would be persecuted. Consider it an honor, and realize that your secular job isn’t listed under your “new life in Christ”. That’s hard for American men, who all define themselves by where they earn their income.
Rick,
I stated in my article and in the comments that we should not lose sight of the goal. The goal is repentance, reconciliation, and restoration. I never said, “God didn’t call me to restore sinners to fellowship; he just called me to discipline them,” though I can agree with it in the sense that I cannot work a change in a sinner’s heart. You seem to be implying that my position is that we should not care or strive to bring people to reconcilliation. If that is how you are reading me, then you have it all wrong.
My point, and I’ll try to put it more clearly, is that the result is not necessarily an indication of whether the method or action was done right. We cannot justify or condemn the means based on the end result. If two people in our church claim to be Christians and they live together, though not married, we would go through the process of church discipline. Let’s say they end up being excommunicated. Five years later the man repents and comes back. The woman never does. Did church discipline succeed or fail? According to you, it succeeded for the man, but failed for the woman.
Church discipline is successful if it is done faithfully to God’s Word, regardless of whether the person ends up trusting in Christ or not. We can do everything we are supposed to do and still lose the person. That doesn’t mean that church discipline is a failure.
I do have faith that God can work in people and change them. But for me, as in evangelism, I don’t measure success by how others respond, but by how faithful I am to God.
Line of Cars,
That would be a great idea. It would keep everyone on the front page and cause both leadership and church members to be responsible for their actions. Many drawbacks would exist, though. It would be an enormous task to develop a program like that and the Convention would have to buy into it and monitor it to prevent liability issues. It would certainly force many to face their accusers in some form or fashion.
I was hoping that the SBC would develop something electronically that would count the people on Sunday morning. We still fill out paperwork like we did in the 50′s and re-enter it in a computer now and never see the results. There should be a computer in every class hooked up to a server. We have a long way to go before the SBC gets updated.
I read this yesterday morning: Luke 17:3, “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”
The part that I’ve never heard Jesus say before was “if he repents” as a prerequisite for forgiveness.
Of course, not forgiving in that way doesn’t justify holding a grudge or remaining angry or hurt. People aren’t good at this stuff…I’m not…
Here’s a Bible story about a guy who believed, “God didn’t call me to be successful. He called me to be faithful,” from Matthew 25:
“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money.
Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’
And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’
He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.
For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Brother Rick,
Before you compare me to the wicked and slothful servant, I encourage you to read carefully through my comment #17. I cannot believe that you read it, understood it, and then went on to insinuate that I am or am in danger of becoming a wicked and slothful servant.
Andrew,
You said, “…though I can agree with it in the sense that I cannot work a change in a sinner’s heart.” You went on to say, “…the result is not necessarily an indication of whether the method or action was done right. We cannot justify or condemn the means based on the end result.” Yet, Matthew 25 seems to do just that – condemn the means based on the end result.
And then you concluded with, “Church discipline is successful if it is done faithfully to God’s Word, regardless of whether the person ends up trusting in Christ or not. We can do everything we are supposed to do and still lose the person. That doesn’t mean that church discipline is a failure.”
Just to explain where I’m coming from so you understand my perspective. I said earlier that I did not mean this personally and I still do not. I am arguing on principle here. I was raised in a Calvinist tradition and the principle of “We can do everything we are supposed to do and still lose the person,” was used to justify not just the disciplined members that never came back but also the lost who never came in the first place. It explained the failure of the visitation program that was ‘faithfully’ attended and never had any discernible affect on baptisms or church attendance. Meanwhile, plenty of churches around us were seeing souls saved, baptisms happening, and attendance increasing. At that point I became a little skeptical of whether we were actually doing what we were supposed to be doing.
I feel the same way about church discipline. As I asked earlier, where are all the BP articles about transformational leadership that has implemented a successful church discipline program that results in heart-felt sorrow, deep-seated repentance, and ultimately restoration and reconciliation? Part of the reason may be churches don’t practice discipline ever. I suspect Pareto’s rule applies and that accounts for 80% of churches. But what of the 20% that do practice discipline? Is there no church in the country doing it correctly? If that’s the case, then it’s no wonder we see no success. But if not, then how do we account for the fact that instances of people who have been genuinely restored due to effective church discipline are like the ivory billed woodpecker – rumored to exist, but never actually documented anywhere?
I’m not saying that your article is wrong. It’s not. In fact it is an article that is necessary and needed to be written. What I am saying is that we should not let ourselves be satisfied with merely “doing what we are supposed to” without seeing ANY restoration. Paul wasn’t. He explained to the Corinthians that the purpose of the sorrow he inflicted was to bring about a greater love for Jesus. So here’s the question – are we aiming at establishing a greater love for Jesus in others, or are we content with merely doing what we are ‘supposed to do’?
Rick,
It appears that we have been ineffective at resolving the argument because I have been arguing that the response of the one receiving church discipline does not determine that we were right or wrong in the way we exercised discipline.
You have been arguing that the response of the one receiving church discipline may indicate that we were right or wrong in the way we exercised discipline.
My premise is not antithetical to your premise. I have tried to affirm both premises. As I said earlier,
I believe you misunderstood me and interpreted my affirmation of one thing as a denial of another. So please don’t appeal to Matthew 25. I think it is serious to suggest that someone is or is becoming a wicked and slothful servant.
There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. – Proverbs 12:18
Fully recognizing that this verse applies firstly to myself, I ask that we would not speak to each other rashly, causing injury, but that we would seek to understand each other and bring mutual edification.
Andrew,
If I were a personal evangelist and confronted people daily about their sinful wicked condition before God, challenging them to repent, and warning them of eternal hellfire if they didn’t, would I be an effective evangelist if no one ever believed? And yes, I know of William Carey, Adoniram Judson, and Hudson Taylor. I’m saying that here in the US, a “faithful” witness who never saw a convert. Is he effective? And just to add to that, what if the Baptist church a mile or two down the road is seeing converts and growing by leaps and bounds at the same time?
This is not an academic question for me. This is personal.
So when I look at church discipline, I have to ask, is the purpose to bring about restoration and reconciliation? I know what your answer is. I went back and read it before I read after my last post. You said:
“4. Always have the goal in mind
“The goal is reconciliation. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8:
“‘Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.’
…
“The goal is always the reconciliation of the offender. When true repentance has been shown and forgiveness sought, the church must turn to comfort the one now afflicted with sorrow. We are to reaffirm our love for our prodigal brother and begin the process of building him back up in the faith.”
You said in your response:
“It appears that we have been ineffective at resolving the argument because I have been arguing that the response of the one receiving church discipline does not determine that we were right or wrong in the way we exercised discipline.”
We do seem to be talking past each other. I never said, “right or wrong” but rather was focusing on whether it was effective or ineffective. You also continue to think that I’m applying Mt. 25 to you personally which I affirm now for the third time that that is not my intent. I do not know if your personal practice of church discipline has been effective in restoring your lapsed Christians or not. To be honest, I would prefer not to know (unless you have nothing but glowing success stories, of course, but not even Jesus had that), as it isn’t germane to my point.
My point is that if we persist in doing things like we are “supposed to” and never see an instance of restoration or reconciliation, then the likelihood that we are doing it “right” is suspect. We are called to be fruitful. We are admonished that we will be judged by our fruit. If I look at my life and I see no fruit, I’m going to question whether or not I really understand what it is I think I understand. But that’s just me. I looked at my life as I had been living it, evaluated it based on where I saw God blessing me with fruitfulness and made a course correction accordingly. Should we not do the same with our practice of church discipline?
Can we define faithfulness, in regard to church discipline, as follows?
Faithfulness is doing the best I know how at seeking the desired results of church discipline: the full reconciliation and restoration of wayward saints, and the conversion of unregenerate sinners. Faithfulness also involves seeking to follow, as best as I know how, the specific instructions laid out in Scripture for church discipline, as well as applying them in a culturally relevant and effective manner in the particular context in which I live and minister. Sometimes, though, due to circumstances beyond my control, true faithfulness will not always bring about the desired results. However, supposed “faithfulness” that is unconcerned with, or does not work diligently and sensitively enough toward the desired results, is not true faithfulness.
Could not this be a common point of agreement among all of us on this?
I can agree with that, David.
Thanks.
I affirm that premise
.
[Comment Removed by Author of Article]
Stephen,
First off, as it seems to me your last comment is made solely with the intention of “stirring the pot,” I am tempted to just ignore it. I will let Andrew decide if he wants to let it stand or not.
Since it provides an opportunity to think through how to best apply some of the principles Andrew writes about here, though, I will jump in and say a few words.
1. I have not yet read the post or comment stream you allude to.
2. Monitoring a blog comment stream is a very complicated task. You always run the risk of being overly gracious to someone, and overly strict with someone else.
3. Here at SBC Impact we have a commenting policy that we do our best to stick to (click here to read it.)
4. It would be almost impossible for anyone of us to become the blog police of other people’s blogs and what they do there. The end result, if we held up that standard, would likely be shutting down all the blogs, as it would end up becoming extremely complicated and unwieldy.
5. All of us say things from time to time that are not said with the degree of grace they should be said with. From time to time, some of us speak up and admonish those we consider to have spoken without the proper amount of grace. We have to be careful, at the same time, that we don’t fall into the trap of being the pot that calls the kettle black, though.
6. As Rick has been insisting here (and Andrew too, as I understand him), the ultimate purpose of church discipline is not punishment or retribution, but rather reconciliation and restoration. If you have a problem with someone else, and the way they have behaved on a blog, as I see it, it is your responsibility to communicate with them personally, and try to work it out between yourselves. If you have already done that, and you feel the need to bring others into it, then you need to do that privately, as well. In general, the process outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. Taking a grievance from one blog to another, and airing it publicly, in “tit for tat” fashion, does not seem to me like an edifying way to handle this, though.
Just some thoughts for you to take into consideration.
I believe before reconciliation and restoration there is forgiveness. I believe forgiveness stands alone when the sinning believer makes his confession.
A church in Denham Springs, LA practiced this. Once, a man came forward at the end of the service on Sunday morning and confessed before the church what he had done. The pastor stood by him and when he had finished his confession the pastor asked the church, “What is your pleasure in this matter?” In one accord the church (300 of them) said in a loud voice, “You’re forgiven.” The man began to weep and the fallowed heart was prepared to begin the restoration process. That was more moving than any event I can remember; even now.
Stephen,
Please limit your comments to the scope of this article. If you wish to carry on discussions from another blog or article, please do so on the original blog on which it was posted.
I especially want to thank David Rogers for his response. I made mention here cause the person in questions sometimes is featured at this site, and in my opinion I have been moderated to oblivion unjustly at the site in question or I woulda made my opinion known there.
I think David Rogers is correct in coming down on the side of restoration and reconciliation. To that degree his heart is much like my own Dad’s, about whom his Brother said in Eulogy at his Funeral: “Billy Fox bore malice to No man.”
David and Andrew, I hope you both are otherwise well.