In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, they're probably too careful about not offending people, they want them to hang around and get saved--so they won't exercise any church discipline, even for a divisive troublemaker, unless it’s to quietly reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church. Let's present a situation: a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week; fact is, they need to be spoken with on the subject of adultery or fornication. Many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of not offending them. In some evangelical churches, many times the only real "church discipline" might occur if you question the pastor’s authority, or point out where Scripture seems to differ from what is being taught. That person might indeed get the left foot of fellowship. Disputing the all-knowledge of the pastor; that'll get you down.
A few churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, like even to the point of shunning, they go overboard on applying it too much; the cults are big at this.
My point is, seldom are the Scripture's rules on church discipline used as a guideline any more—which is too bad, since the rules are laid out there in detail and are easily understandable--and are meant to keep a healthy church, free of unsaved people whose purpose is to sneak in and destroy God's local light of evangelism and fellowship.
So, let’s take a look at what churches should be doing, by looking at Scripture. There are graduating steps. First, let’s say you, a regular churchgoer, have a problem with another person at church; they are definitely doing something to harm you. Let’s say you confronted them, exhorted them, but their only reaction was feeling victimized--or they ignore you. If you are close to the Lord, you know their sin hurts them and you and possibly the church you both attend, so something has to be done. The next step, in most cases will be in Matthew 18:15-16:
“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’
The church should be an interested party, if anger and bitterness among its members have negatively affected its evangelistic light. (We'll assume when they became members, they knew about this brand of accountability being expected, being spelled out in church bylaws. Of course, they might not be members, which changes the rules). The church's role in this situation is to provide objective witnesses trying to get at the truth, and render solid advice to repair relationships. But--in today’s society, if you tell one of the offenders that you’re bringing a couple people to listen and talk to him, it’s unlikely that he will even meet with you. But bringing witnesses are necessary—they are important for validating what was said, critical in later steps below. (By the way, though I'm using male pronouns, all these rules work for women too). Let’s say he does meet with you and the witnesses (which are, hopefully, not just your friends at church). But, in the end, he still won’t agree with you. Then it’s time for step 2, in Matthew 18:17a:
And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.
This means first telling the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, and him, and maybe a couple others some questions. Getting the church administration involved could be a big step. Do you have mature people in leadership who will follow the Scripture’s discipline rules? Hopefully. Then there is another problem: Your problem person might react like the church is “ganging up” on him, and just mentally make himself the victim--or the rebel—so it may make him even less likely to repent. On the other hand, if he’s got a long history with the church, his next step could be to chatter with his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and if these people have power, it may even split the church. Whether all this goes in a godly direction depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charming personality instead, even if that person is hurting the church?
So here’s what SHOULD happen next if the church leaders feel you have a genuine case, have checked out all the facts, and have the courage to actually do church discipline—I Timothy 5:20:
Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.
Wow, a public rebuke. Scripture doesn't list what sins are serious enough to get into this stage of treatment; it’s the elders’ call. Even if the troublemaker refuses to talk with them, they shouldn’t shirk from following through this verse, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better. This verse means the pastor has proper authority, by Scripture, to do a public rebuke to a member. Keep in mind, I remind you, that it is all done in love, with the goal of bringing this person to repentance and reconciliation. It has a side benefit, as stated above: “the rest also may fear (God).” (I have a blog on the benefits of a fear of God; there are many, many Scriptures that speak of it.) Ideally, in the public event, the offender, who has been told of this rebuke, is present. If he is not there, do it anyway. I know this sounds contrarian, but the reprimand should seek to make sure as many church members as possible are there, too. If everyone hears all the details of the case and the quality of the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow into division later.
Most church members today would really be shocked and anxious when they hear about such an upcoming public rebuke, it's so rare it happens anymore, so the pastor has to prepare them Scripturally beforehand. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church as soon as they hear about the public rebuke, and some will leave after, since the church no longer served their purpose as the comfy place where they can relax and do whatever they want, sin as much as they want, without accountability. Don't worry about losing such members. God made the church for accountability--just look up the many verses with the words "exhort," "entreat," "implore" or "admonish."
This public rebuking was done in the earliest days of the Church—and we’re not talking about Salem, or The Inquisition here. We’re talking about the Acts chapters 2 through 5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel. In fact, I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some rebellious members—this may not be bad. As Gideon proved, you can accomplish more for Him by obeying His difficult Word—in this case, properly exercising church discipline--even though you’re now operating with fewer in number. Accomplishing more for God--that is what you want, right? Not just a puffed-up membership number. You don't want to be a church which spends most of its time trying to put out fires caused by the "baby" Christians.
Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the rebuke,” or even if he shows up, maybe his heart is hardened and he will not change his mind. Now what do you do, as a church? Matthew 18:17b shows us the next step:
But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
What does that mean, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Well, don’t just assume this means “shunning.” Yes, that would be the meaning in the Old Testament, and where the Pharisees ruled. But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, since Jesus condemned them? We're under a new covenant, the New Testament, which has our instructions. Instead, let's look at how Jesus treated the heathens and tax collectors. (The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Some cheated on the books and made themselves rich. Not a beloved crew).There are plenty of verses on this. Consider Mark 2:16-17:
And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
As an explanation of the phrase "I did not come to call the righteous," Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are righteous to God; it’s more like self-righteous, and “those who are well” really means “well in your own eyes.” These are the proper definitions of the Greek--and thus we see His sarcasm of the Pharisees. The point is, He had no problem socially mingling with the sinners and tax collectors—in fact, it was one of the charges against Him at His trial. He did good things with the Gentiles (non-Jews), as well--such as the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. The Jews normally refused to even speak to Samaritans. He also went into their homes. More fascinating reading is Luke 19:5-7, the story of Zacchaeus, a Jewish tax collector:
And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”
Note that in later verses, Zacchaeus believes in Jesus and performs righteous acts of large amounts of alms for the poor and people he had offended. So Jesus' visit was effective. Even though he was a known sinner, and might have even stolen from his Jewish brothers, Jesus just wanted to save souls, and this man had a sincere salvation experience. The best place to evangelize is among people who are humbled and low in life, unloved by the masses.
Well, then, did all this carrying on with the obscure sinful folk mean that Jesus winked at sin, and caroused with sinners? Not at all; Jesus wanted to bring salvation to as many people as He could. Sometimes people are reached through hard rebuke—Jesus did those at other times. Other times, it was by love—such as with Zacchaeus.
To fully understand what we're saying, we're not suggesting shunning these people. To give you a little more history: Jesus knew that no “sinner” or Gentile or tax collector could ever be a member of a synagogue. They were denied sacred ritual. This in itself was a serious disciplinary rebuke. In the same way today, I’m saying, after a public rebuke, the unrepentant sinner should not be allowed Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, a channel of grace—thus he is “ex-communicated.” (Ex-communication, for several hundred years, was a fearful situation to be in, and was often used as a weapon to get people to toe the "proper" doctrinal line.) Communion was so important to the early Church that it was celebrated weekly—even daily, for some. They were so strict on this, that in the case of a serious sin, and even if the person were repentant, the early church might still keep him in ex-communication for awhile longer to test out the sincerity of his repentance. In those early days, if you denied Christ under persecution, let’s say, then later wanted to repent and rejoin the church, you could still be denied Communion for ten years. I remind you, this delay of reinstatement had to do with really serious sins. The sinner needed to be reminded of the gravity of his sin, and the church wanted to know if he is really serious in his repentance.
Temporary ex-communication could also be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work. An unrepentant sinner might be denied Communion for that week, until he repents. Considering the stubbornness of some, he may be denied, week after week, never have Communion again.
Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used. Again, with explanation. In the middle ages, that was enough for him to feel that he lost his salvation. Now its importance is casually ignored. We will pay the price for being casual about adult baptism and Communion; they are important instruments of maintaining salvation.
Getting back to the present subject, the unrepentant sinner is also not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, listen to the sermon, but gets escorted out or ignored in the passing of the Lord's supper. He certainly cannot be a speaker, or voter.
But despite all these negatives, here’s what separates Scripture from cults: at this level, for unrepentant sinners, based on what Jesus did above for Zacchaeus, and others, it’s OK for regular members to socially get together with them. You're not at the shunning stage yet. But, in your getting together with them, your purpose is to leave yourself honest and open. You should still carry a good testimony; the real goal is that your godliness might gently nudge them to reconciliation. And this could mean his salvation. After all, if the sin involves his unmerciful attitude, or unwillingness to forgive, he could be unsaved just because of that. Consider Matthew 6:15:
…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
A word of warning here: we cannot say out loud that someone has lost his salvation, because Scripture says we often can’t tell the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:29, 30).
So Scripture teaches a delicate mix (shunning them from the sacred ritual, but not shunning them from church society). This is what God decided through Scripture to handle this situation at this point.
I want to remind you: The pastor who refuses to wade deep into discipline, and study it, is not a friend of the flock. After all, if he backs off, he has treated Scripture lightly, besides turning his head on evil deeds—that’s a bad example. He will be judged by God on judgment day.
Now, let’s move on to the next level and when it’s activated. Read I Corinthians 5:11:
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
Keep in mind that this person would have already gone through public rebuke and ex-communication--but to no effect. Now we're talking a person who is probably not a Christian, but broadcasts that he is. He is still public about grievous sin. He is hurting Christ by claiming to be a "brother" while sinning like this. So we break away socially as well, almost complete shunning, and this level is for the most serious of sins: Someone who was, or claimed to be, a brother and has done one of these terrible things, and won't repent, you are not to eat or socialize with them. (But you could, of course, attempt to save them if they were drowning, or you could do a good deed for them, as Christ commanded even for an enemy). Other lists of serious sins are: Ephesians 5:3-5, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. They do not all list the exact same serious sins, but they’re very close. It shouldn’t be hard to decide when to take this step. Note the phrase above, "anyone named a brother." By his behavior, he has denied His Savior. Unrepentant denial of our Savior could mean eternity in hell (Matthew 10:33).
One other set of verses is a serious enough sin to place it in this level of discipline: it's in II Thessalonians 3:6, 10-15:
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us... 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner… 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
Thus, living off welfare, where one can work, but has no intention to work, was a serious sin to be added to this level of discipline.
In all these above verses, keep one thing in mind: All those verses speak of an UNREPENTANT sinner, who has/is attending church as a "Christian," doing those things. Every saved person should know repentance and confession. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and give forgiveness if we are repentant at the foot of the Cross.
Next let's talk about the “total shunning” level: This is reserved for those who are bringing a doctrine that says Christ has not come in the flesh. In the church’s early days, the target of this one was the Gnostics. In their mysterious religion, they had two gods; the inferior god created an inferior race, Man. But the perfect God couldn’t come to earth as a man, they said, which is inferior, so in His appearances, He wasn’t really flesh and blood. This heresy is spoken about in II John 10-11:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
It’s the phrase “nor greet him” that makes this level of discipline unique. That’s total shunning. Is there a limit to the shun? I guess it’s OK to save him if he were drowning, but I don’t know—what if he’s heavier, what if he’s thrashing wildly? I’d think about it for awhile, hmmm. No, I’m just kidding. You don’t take shunning THAT far. But it advises that we don't even speak to this person. This person is a true enemy of God's people, but don't forget, Christ said we should still love and pray for our enemies. But they're kryptonite, and working with the devil to destroy the Church.
Anyway, these are the levels of church discipline. May God help us to pray that our church leaders will have courage to exercise these things before some really bad people start secretly tearing things down in our church. Which has already happened, weakening even many denominations. Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.
Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, CD: Church Discipline, Scroll Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment