Paul's Passing Thoughts

Ordinarily, I would think that the following fact is bizarre:  the vast majority of church discipline practiced today is unbiblical. But the fact of the matter is, as a former elder, I was on an elder body that practiced errant discipline. What we were doing had a semblance of  biblical correctness and the church had always done it that way – it’s an easy trap to fall into. In the Christian life, most assumptions (concerning truth not verified) are dangerous; you eventually learn that. However, my past error will serve to make my initial points.

Like everyone else, we used Matthew 18:15-20 as a schematic for church discipline. That was our first mistake. The passage has nothing to do with church discipline, it is clearly a procedure initiated by Christ to resolve conflict among Christians. But worse yet, we didn’t even use the wrong text the right way once we decided to use it that way. Like many elder bodies, instead of calling on the whole congregation to confront the individual  before the fourth and final step of excommunication, we instead announced that it was a done deal, and the person was to be treated “like” an “unbeliever.” Supposedly, calling on the whole church to confront the individual was “impractical” because of the size of some churches. Therefore, that certainly isn’t what Christ meant, right? Wrong. That’s exactly what Paul called on the church at Philippi to do in the case of Euodia and Syntyche. We have no idea how large that church was and apparently it’s not relevant. Besides, if the church is really a body, and there is a problem with a member or organ, it is certainly the business of the body to aid in the cure.

As if that would not be enough, using a text for the wrong premise, and then not even following the premise correctly, we then instructed the congregation to treat the individual “like” an “unbeliever” and to present the gospel to them if they (any member of the congregation) crossed paths with the individual. In the first place, were we leading the congregation into sin by telling them to present the gospel to the person instead of discussing the unresolved matter? Yes, because their correct role was initially short-circuited by skipping the supposed third step. But in the second place, how do we get from “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” to “treat him as an unbeliever”? If Christ wanted them treated like an unbeliever, why wouldn’t He simply say so? The word “pagan” is the Greek word “ethneekos.” It means “ethnic,” and referred to Gentiles. Not all Gentiles were unbelievers and the Temple had a separate court for them known as the court of the Gentiles. Also, Matthew, one of the twelve, was a tax collector. To say that Christ was making Gentiles and tax collectors synonymous with the unregenerate is an assumption at best. Most likely, Christ was saying not to treat them with the same intimacy that you would a fellow believer that had no unresolved conflict with the body; in other words, as if nothing were going on, or business as usual. In the final analysis on this point, it is far less assumptive. And by the way, this is consistent with how Paul said to treat an idle brother. Rather than the usual fellowship you would enjoy, you entreat him as a brother, but you don’t feed him and give money while acting like there are no issues going on (2Thess. 3:6-15).

When it gets right down to it, the New Testament addresses several different circumstance that are to be handled in their own unique ways ( Sins against brothers: Matt.18:15-20. False teaching that causes division:1Tim. 6:3-5, 2John:10,11 Titus 3:10, Rom.16:16,17. Sinning Elders:1 Timothy 5:19. Broken fellowship between parishioners: Phil. 4:2,3. Idleness: 2Thess. 3:6-15.  Gross Immorality: 1Cor. 5:1- 13). Though concepts from Matthew 18 could certainly be borrowed, to apply a Matthew 18 grid to all other circumstances requiring confrontation is sloppy hermeneutics, and that’s being kind.

Another important point to look at here is in regard to actual excommunication, or expulsion from the body. The only account that we have, or cause for an expulsion from the assembly, is in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. This is the only passage were expulsion is not in doubt, and the reason is gross immorality of the sexual kind. Paul says in no uncertain terms: “Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” And, “Expel the wicked man from among you.” Again, this is the only place where expulsion is explicitly instructed. Also note: in all of the other sins confronted in the letter to the Corinthians, this is the only place that any kind of disciplinary action is commanded! I think this is a point well worth mentioning. Paul motivates them throughout the letter to obey because of God’s promise of reward, loss of reward, judgment, the coming resurrection, etc.; but chapter 5 is the only place where God’s people are commanded to take specific action to remove a parishioner from the fellowship. I believe this speaks volumes toward an argument that church discipline is reserved for sins of the baser sort, those “of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.” Likewise, Jonathan Edwards agreed, stating in his Yale commentary that expulsion is only for  the “visibly wicked” sin of the “gross” sort,  and “gross public sin” accompanied by a stiff-necked, unrepentant arrogance (volume 22, pages 69 and 78).

But now we come to the other side of the coin that contains my above arguments, but states the value. Even in this one explicit case where we have a man expelled from the congregation, Paul does not declare him to be an unbeliever, but rather assumes the opposite: “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” Bottom line: nowhere does the Bible say that a professing believer should ever be “declared” an unbeliever for any reason; to the contrary, Paul states the opposite by assuming that the expelled Corinthian was saved. It is also worth mentioning  that Jesus assumes that the lost sheep that stray from the flock are in fact part of the flock and should be diligently sought after (Matt. 18:10-14). Perhaps the idea that we can do this (declare individuals to be unbelievers) is spawned by the belief that it is the church that actually does the disciplining when the term its self (“church discipline”) is a misnomer. In rare circumstance we expel, but it is the Lord that does the disciplining outside of the church: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” There is discipline by the Lord inside and outside of the church ( Hebrews 12:5-11, 1Cor. 11:30), and self discipline (1Cor. 11:31-32), but there is no “church discipline” practiced by elders or the church. It begs the question thus far: how many different ways can the church get this wrong?

But now we come to a biblical reality that swallows hard when mixed with the information above. There is a fellow that is in the business of  accusing the brethren of being unbelieving. It is the mode of operation practiced by Satan. Though we cannot find any reference to a duty of the church to “declare” someone an unbeliever, the Scriptures are replete with examples of Satan doing so. In fact, God calls him the “accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 12:10). And trust me, he (Satan) has plenty of reasons to bring the accusations as Paul did in regard to the Corinthian man, but in contrast, Paul assumed the opposite was true. We get a good picture of what I am saying in Zechariah 3:1-4;

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.”

I might also add that in Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus said the following:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “

It is clear that the “servants” in this parable are unable to ascertain the true spiritual standing of anyone in the church. Christ makes it clear that they could be mistaken. It would follow then that we are in no better position to “declare” anyone an unbeliever. The whole notion is patently absurd, unless you’re Satan.

Here is also something I know at ground level from being a reformed  leader / elder for several years: the types of “church” discipline being practiced today rarely produce a happy ending. Some Reformed churches that I know of have excommunicated hundreds of people, and have no outcomes worth celebrating. Out of all my years in the Reformed realm (about 15), I know of one story that turned out well. Funny, in the New Testament, we have but one example, and it  turned out well. We know this from Paul’s  second letter to the Corinthians. This is something that really haunted me for years; if  our discipline was being done according to Scripture, where were the results?

The practice of something that’s not in the Bible with the wrong text, and the wrong premise, and then the wrong application of the wrong premise;  maybe that’s why.

paul

“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