Paul's Passing Thoughts

“let there be no doubt about it, church discipline is often the result of inept ‘biblical’ counsel, and as if that’s not tragic enough, the church discipline is then executed incorrectly.”

As I stated in another post: “Since I became a christian in 1983, I have seen the church move back to the practice of church discipline in a big way. After years of seeing open sin tolerated in the church [ and I was not in a liberal church ], the discovery of church discipline was an epiphany for me some 7 years after becoming a christian.” I forgot to mention how glad I was to see it make a come back, until recently. The evangelical churches attempt to bring back church discipline often looks like something out of a Keystone Cops movie, with Barney Fife directing.

Point in case, The Rebecca Hancock case http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469928,00.html. After consuming several articles pro and con, enough facts can be ascertained to make an all too familiar judgement. Once again, a church has muffed a church discipline situation. The result? The whole messy situation is now public for the express result of a pooling of ignorance so huge in it’s proportions, that it could only be matched by the oceans and seas. I was recently put into a situation where I had to delve deep into what the Bible says concerning church discipline and I’m amazed at how wrong most churches have it. Grace Community Church in L.A. seems to cut it pretty straight, but Grace Community Church in Jacksonville Florida, Hancocks old church, well, that’s another story.

Let’s get this straight, I am not defending Hancock. Obedience to Christ is how we love him as Lord and Savior. The boy friend needs to take a back seat to Christ in her life, like yesterday. But tomorrow, the church’s elders are going to announce her sins to the church, and possibly for no good biblical reason. As stated in their letter posted by Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Church_Extortion.pdf , their premise is Matthew 18. This scripture addresses sins against other believers, not personal moral failure of the baser sort:

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Let me pause here before I make my first point.  As a former elder, I was involved in several situations like this, where someone submitted a letter of resignation from membership after being confronted with a church discipline issue. Another elder suggested in this situation, individuals “discipline themselves” by leaving. I scoffed at this notion and brushed it aside as a lame attempt to move on with business as usual. However, I now see some scriptural wisdom in this, especially if this is explained to the erring member accordingly. In regard to living in open sin, Paul’s concern is that the membership stop associating with this individual. The purpose of congregational involvement is to turn such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, if this person is still present with the congregation.  If they have already left  and have been informed that they are outside the protective realm of the church, it may be a mute point. It would only be an issue if they came back for any reason in an attempt to fellowship with the congregation. Keep in mind, God disciplines some Christians living in secret sin without the congregations knowledge:

“But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.” 1Cor 11:28-32

I also offer this practical consideration: Does good usually result from doing things without the application of biblical wisdom? It just so happens that a demand to return to a church for the purpose of  making things right with the threat of public humiliation attached to the demand is considered to be extortion in some states. In Ohio for instance, preventing someone from executing a legal act by threat of bodily harm or public humiliation is considered coercion or extortion under state kidnapping laws. Leaving a church is a legal act. If Florida law is the same, these elders have put this in writing, but under the wrong premise of Matthew 18. GOOD GRIEF!!!

We must take note that 1Cor 5 is very distinct from Matt 18  for those living in fornication. The calling together of the congregation is for the purpose of exclusion and not a third exhortation to repent. In the case of Rebecca Hancock, what were they even doing in Matthew 18? Applying Matthew 18 to the situation simply created the mess that it now is. But there is yet another angle here. This lady was sharing the situation with her “mentor.” There is also an indication that it was an off and on again struggle.

1. Some part of her wanted to deal with it or she wouldn’t have shared it with her mentor.

2. She had a mentor. Usually, those who are not serious about there relationship with the Lord, don’t bother with mentors.

3. She broke off the relationship several times, but for some reason ended back in this sinful relationship.

This makes me wonder; how solid was the counsel she was getting from the mentor? let there be no doubt about it, church discipline is often the result of inept biblical counsel, and as if that’s not tragic enough, the church discipline is then executed incorrectly. Apparently, a new trend among church’s is people showing up for a counseling appointment and finding themselves in the church discipline process. People who seek out counsel and end up being disciplined is very unsettling to me for many reasons.  Without a doubt, before you would move toward any kind of church discipline, you would employ Proverbs 11:14, “Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory.” Before anybody who came to you for counsel ends up excommunicated, it seems that you would want to make sure a shortfall in your  wisdom did not contribute accordingly.

One may also want to be cautious in regard to the fact that 1Cor 5 seems to be dealing with people who are being brazen and arrogant in their sin, as opposed to a weak believer or perhaps ignorant as well. From what can be gleaned from this account, it seems possible that Hancock was truly ignorant of the biblical ramifications. If this situation suddenly went from a counseling situation to the second step of church discipline, confusion and that feeling you get when you have been ambushed could have resulted, which is not helpful. This is certainly possible if you consider the letter she received from the elders. They do not even explain the biblical purpose for the third step of discipline, which is a third exhortation. But Paul doesn’t want the congregation hanging out with this individual according to a Matthew 18 situation. Once the fact of unrepentant fornication is established, the church is to turn the individual over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that they are not judged with the world. Is this the purpose?, or is it the Matthew 18 purpose? They don’t even say!, and frankly, they probably don’t even know.

The buffoonery list of inept church discipline goes on and on. For instance, imagine going to witnesses for the second step with the option of following through only if they wanted to. But yet, it’s done all the time in the third step. Listen, if you are going to “tell it to the church”, they should be educated accordingly: involvement in the third exhortation should not be optional. If it is optional, don’t tell them, and if there are stipulations, educate accordingly. If the congregation is not educated according to their practical responsibility in the matter, it is merely gossip and nothing more. Worse yet, many churches combine exhortation and excommunication in the third step, eliminating the fourth step altogether. Furthermore, it is clear from scripture that different situations warrant different discipline processes, and different treatment in the final analysis. In regard to process and final treatment, compare Matt 18:15-20, 1Tim 6:3-5, 2Jn 10, Titus 3:10, 1Tim 5:19,20, 1Cor 5:1-13, 2Thess 3:6-15, Gal 6:1.  But yet, the grid of Matthew 18 is painted over everything.  This is just a plain sloppy rendering of the scriptures and to the detriment of many.

I am weary of all the whining and moaning about these issues being “dragged into the public.” What do we expect? If the Church will not clean up it’s own mess, the world will be more than happy to do it for us. Many church’s had better get rid of it’s attitude that sloppy church discipline is ok because, after all, we are dealing with people who are sinning. 

paul