I don't think there's any question that the Scriptures teach church discipline. Tough questions come on how to apply the biblical teachings. It's interesting how issues come up in bunches.
Lifeway's Sunday school curriculum had a lesson last week on church discipline. It was a pretty good lesson, focusing on the necessity of confrontation in some circumstances and the importance of confronting in love, gentleness, and humility.
I have also been hearing of a church that had been recently attempting to apply church discipline. They see the biblical teaching for it, they see the need for it in their own midst, and they're trying to do right. I don't know all the details, but it seems like their going about it in all the wrong ways. It appears judgmental and condemning.
I know that corrective church discipline may frequently seem judgmental and condemning, but it doesn't look like it's being done for restoration in this circumstance.
In the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 18, steps one and two seem like the easy ones... Go alone... go with one or two others. Simple enough. Where it gets sticky is with the final couple of steps, "tell it to the church" and "treat him like an unbeliever," especially the former.
I see how it's easy for churches to start messing up at this point. So, practically, what do you think? How do you "tell it to the church" and "treat him like an unbeliever?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
See also 1 Cor. 5 and "deliever the man to Satan..."
I think the key to church discipline is Biblical (regenerate) church membership. When we do a good job of ensuring that every single member of our churches is a believer, it is easy to treat someone as an unbeliever: you remove them from membership (because you only accept believers as members) and you lovingly preach the gospel to them.
We are not finally the judge on whether someone is or is not a believer. However, we must treat people as they are acting. If they are not willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ, they are acting as an unbeliever. We should treat them as such for their own souls sake and becasue we are commanded to.
Great question and great discussion. Much more could be said.
I agree with JC, particularly on the point that must treat people as they are acting for the sake of their own souls.
I will add only this - that a church can only properly practice church discipline when 1) it has been taught church discipline (and not just once on a Sunday or Wendnesday night!), 2) the proper aim and attitude of church discipline has been strongly emphasized, and 3) a set, consistent strategy for obeying steps 3 and 4 of Matthew 18 has been adopted. In our own church, we've altered our Members' Meetings quite a bit so that there is now a set and proper time and place for the leadership to bring cases of discipline before the body.
Moreover, we've agreed to postpone practicing steps 3 and 4 until our church has adopted the new constitution. In adopting this constitution, our church will be affirming their willingness to obey Christ in this matter. Without this pivotal step, anytime a case was brought before the body we could be accused of having a double standard ("After all, back in 1980 so and so did such and such and we didn't discipline him", etc.) The adopting of the constitution is an opportunity for our church to recommit themselves to obedience in this matter, and in effect to acknowledge that there has been a failure of this in the past. The pastors (and/or deacons) of a church shoudn't have to push the people into practicing church discipline - this constitution shows us that this is something that the body wants to do.
Maybe that helps - maybe not. Very good discussion, though.
Both very good responses.
Randy (it's Randy right?), that sounds like a wise course of action. That may be one of the problems with the situation cited in the post. It seems they just got fed up and started... passionately, but not very thoughtfully.
Or maybe it was JN, sorry.
Wasn't me, though I agree with what was said.
Post a Comment