Is Church Discipline Biblical??? Should We Refuse Fellowship?
Aug 13
Okay, okay, okay. I know this is one of those sensitive topics, especially in America where people are not only not talked to and corrected about sin but when we employing all types of methodologies just to get people to come in the building vs watching the football game or doing yard work.
So let me first answer the question and then move into the discussion. YES!!!! Yes “church discipline” is biblical. Not the term (just like the Trinity, or Hypostatic Union or Regeneration or…..) but the concept is there. And not only is it biblical, it is the most LOVING thing you can do. But not only that it is one the most DIFFICULT thing a group of believers would have to and because of that we best make sure we are erring on the side of grace because truth be told it is very difficult to grasp. So our questions should be who, what, when, why and where, top that off with a how. I think there are about four references in scripture dealing with this and I am going to try to build a Systematic case.
Personal
Jesus is talking in parables to the disciples in Matthew 18 and in the midst of this He begins to talk about how to respond if someone sins against you. In Matthew 18:15-20. Jesus says
“let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”
Jesus begins with “if you brother sins against you”. Now first, lets identify who is protagonist and antagonist. This is a sin perpetrated against an individual. What the sin is Jesus does not identify; however, Jesus says you got to him, then take a couple folks with you and finally bring him before the church. I think there are a few reasons for this. First, don’t tell anyone, you go to them in private, this shows that there is a relationship and most likely the Spirit filled person will repent and seek restoration. Secondly, we have to get some witnesses. I personally this is to validate that this is a sin worthy of being dealt with and not some flim flam wishy washy stuff. But not only this we now have a few people telling the person you were wrong. Finally you take him before the body, this now gives the entire body room to judge and make a decision and to stand in agreement. THE ENTIRE CHURCH MAKES THE DECISION (this is very important). And if he still refuses then he is to be withheld fellowship.
Whats important here is that the person who was sinned against handles the entire process, this is not leadership making a decision, this is very public (the entire process) and there is no remorse or repentance. What is even more importantly is what I believe the next parable tells us.
You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
Gross Doctrinal Error
The next issue is gross doctrinal error. The kind that Paul talks about in 1 Timothy 1:20, Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Peter 2:1-20, Jude 1:1-23, 2 John 1:7 and 3 John 1:9-10. These seem to be the types of false teaching that are warned about in scripture. I may have missed one or two but as much as I can remember these seem to be the type of teaching that we not only SHOULD but MUST discipline for if we are to be obedient and protect one another.
Again outside of those listed above, I don’t think we can divide (refuse fellowship) over other issues. I know we attempt to make things Gospel issues. I have heard many of theologians, many that I respect as faithful teachers, say things that are just downright wrong. How God saves is not as important as we make it out to be. Unless of course it deals with what Paul talks about in Galatians 1. Eternal Security, though very important, is not something we can divide over. Women in ministry, is not something we can separate over, I don’t care what the Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says. We must be very careful as Paul says:
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
Sometimes we have to refuse fellowship over doctrine. Doctrine is important. It is not an option but we must be very careful over what and always keep Matthew 18: 15-20 in mind.
To make matters even more complicated is Titus 3:10-11 and 1 Corinthians 3. Both talks about a divisive person. The divisive person is to be refused fellowship. So the guy with the ministry who is always trying to correct, the one that everyone is a false prophet, or false teacher. The guys who follow Rick Warren around publicly chastising him, the guys who have a problem with those who are Republicans or those who are Democrats, the guy who is always critiquing the sermon, always pointing out faults. That guy who is trying to keep the church “pure” may actually be the one who needs to be refused fellowship.
Sin
Morality is something we have to discipline over. This is one of the most difficult ones because there are very little examples in scripture as a matter of fact I can only find one and that is in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and even this is an extreme case. Dude was bringing his step mother to the same fellowship his dad was probably at and rubbing it in the face of the people. Paul says the pagans think this is horrible and you think you are being Godly!
We are not to live in sin, John says the one who walks in darkness has no fellowship with God. Paul tells Titus about good works, which we were saved for, one seems to be service oriented while the other is personal morality. Paul often rebukes the church for practicing sexual immorality, gossiping, stealing from one another and so forth. Morality is very important because we are to be salt and light to the world. Paul says “you are no longer slaves to sin, to walk therein”. He goes on to say in Romans 8 “the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God” and “can’t please God”. We are not to continue living in unrighteousness, this is unacceptable.
The problem is today the Church is very disobedient. I don’t know why and I don’t want to judge the motives of why, but it is wrong. I would even say a church that is not attempting to obey God in this regards should be exluded from fellowship. A group of leaders and a body who does nothing to deal with things like this should not be considered a church. I know the “judge not” statements will usually be the defense; however, if a Christian is overtaken in sin and his/her response is “don’t judge me” they are most likely not a believer and your response should be that of what Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 5.
We are not to go peek in windows or follow people around like McGruff the crime dog but when people are walking in habitual gross immorality and you have bared with them, extended God’s love to them, taken them before the fellowship and they refuse to repent, then you have to refuse fellowship. This is not an option, as obedience never is.
Muddy Areas
A muddy area is one found in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. A quick summary is that because of bad theology (eschatology) these people said they no longer had to work because Jesus was returning and they could just be idle, going house to house eating people’s bread. Paul had earlier corrected this theology but they continued in their ways. Paul tells the church to “have nothing to do with them” but he adds a unique command after that “dont’ regard him as an enemy but warn him as a brother”. This is a much different tone and approach to that of 1 Corinthians 5.
I don’t know what something like that may look like today. Maybe someone who has some faulty theology that is causing the outside world to look down upon the church and they refuse to be admonished about it. However, like in Jude there seems to be a much warmer response than discipline in view here.
Church discipline is biblical, it is actually what Jesus has in mind in Matthew 18:18. Church discipline is tough, it should be as painful as you sawing your own hand off with a dull butter knife, but none the less, it is something we are commanded to do. We are not to take it lightly, use it to manipulate or control or to lash out. We only see a couple of instances of all Paul’s letters and a lot of those churches were jacked up (much like us). I think the false teaching is most important, then gross UNREPENTANT sin and finally personal sin that will cause future issues in the body because the person is unrepetant. Church Covenants, leader’s theological or personal preferences and disagreement of some doctrinal issues are not reasons we can discipline. Lets remain biblical in this area on both sides of the coin.
Lionel,
I don’t accept that the words, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”, means to withdraw any relationship with them,as many do, but that they are to be regarded as not having heard the Gospel, which changes the attitude to be exhibited towards them.
The possibility is that they are NOT followers of Christ. That being the case,we must remember Paul’s confident words, “…the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation”.
If they are Christians, “Brothers,if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”
I doubt that we ought to try and understand the quoted Matthew 18 verse apart from the rest of the chapter.
Aussie,
Hutch had the same perspecitve; however, I can’t go with that perspective. Here is why the “brother” is a professing believer, not a unbeliever. Paul demands that we treat a profession believer who refuses to repent much differently than we do a run of the mil nonbeliever.
Next there is also some switch in the relationship. Here is what I mean. What if the person who refuses to repent keeps going on as a believer. He comes to church every Sunday, he serves in ministry (maybe he is an elder or a deacon), he teaches the youth, he leads a bible study at his home. How would you practically apply what you are saying to that type of person?
Lionel,
You have introduced some extras to the original.
In this situation, if I had anything to do with it, he wouldn’t be in any ministry, elder deacon or any other, such as you mentioned, and, assuming he was a part of the same congregation as I, they would also be aware that he had been exhorted to repentance, that he had not done so, and was unworthy to be trusted, but I would continue to love him and seek to minister to him, as I would any unbeliever.
Experience shows me that he would more than likely disassociate himself.
I would be most inconsistent to treat him as under the Old Covenant whilst, myself, claiming to be functioning as a New Covenant person.
Aussie J,
Got you I understand now, I was coming from the perspective that something in the relationship changes and we have to employ some type of “discipline” to the unrepenant brother who is serving. I even agree with your perspective when it comes to 1 Cor 5, that is sooner or later he is a nonbeliever and must be loved; however, even then if he goes about his normal way as a believer the relationship can’t be the same as one who is a run of the mill pagan.
Would you seek to discipline a brother who serves in combat?
Next, we must remember that no matter what country we live in, all earthly governments are a part of the fallen world system that is in opposition to God. Luke 17:21, John 17:16, John 18:36, 2 Cor. 4:4, Ephesians 2:2, Phil. 2:15, Col. 2:8, 1 John 4:5, 1 John 5:19. Those in whom the Kingdom of God resides (Luke 17:21) are commanded to love their enemies (Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27, Luke 6:35) are to never seek or take revenge or exact vengeance upon another (Matt. 5:38-39, Romans 12:19, Hebrews 10:30) are to conduct themselves in a gentle manner (Matt. 5:15, Galatians 5:23, Ephesians 4:2, Phil. 4:5, Col. 3:12, 1 Tim. 3:3, 1 Tim. 6:11, Titus 3:2) and are to be non-violent (Matt. 5:38-39, 1 Tim. 3:3).
Hutch,
Thats a darn good question man, darn good question. I don’t think so because I don’t see Paul or even Jesus condemning soldiers. I think I would echo Paul’s words in Corinthians when he says “if you can get free then do so”. If you can get out of the military, do so! However, the only problem is if all soldiers got out then who would be salt and light in areas like Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars will continue and maybe there is some good in some of these wars if evil is restrained (we often times see God use the hands of the nonbeliever to restrain the overly wicked). True peace can only be found in Christ. Outside of that there is no long-term hope just short-term illusions.
Hutch,
When does self defense come in to play or does it?
What if someone came in to rob you or do harm to your family, would you remain non violent?
Lionel-
So we only have to be obedient to some of Christ’s and Paul’s commands?
Christians in the Military are being salt and light in Iraq and Afganistan by killing their enemies as opposed to loving them?
But with that said, even though I believe Christian serving in combat to be in sin and in violation of Christ’s commands, you and I do not agree on the issue of the non-existent term Church Discipline in the bible. I would not discipline either, I would teach them the differnec between the Kingdom of God which is within a Christian and the love of God Romans 5:5 that allows us to live contrary and counter-cultural by loving God, neighbor, brothera nd enemy and the kingdoms of this world and how Christains do not respond to situations the way fallen world does through violence.
But the fallen and evil kingdoms of this world including the US will alwasy act according to the flesh as they cannot do otherwise they are unregenerate and do not have the Kingdom and love of God within them.
But my main point is that when you go down teh road of church discipline and shunning people, you really are only shunning over your own select list of sins. See what I mean?
Jon-
Matt 5:38-39
Hutch,
How do you interpret Luke 22:35-36?
Jon-
I interpret it in context with His purpose, what was said before and after and the events that depict the swords mentioned, the garden, arrest, and teh subsequent trial.
Let me know how you see it, what you think it means, how you udnerstand it in relationship with the other verses I mentioned, so I know where you are coming from and then I will share with you the purpose of two swords being present at Christ’s arrest.
Hutch,
I don’t quite understand the meaning of verse 36. Could it possibly mean that there is a time when self defense is necessary and not considered a sin?
Hutch,
There seem to be soldiers who were followers of Christ and Christ never denounced it.
Next I still think discipline (which is a refusal of fellowship) is necessary to someone who maligns the grace of God and the purpose of the Church. So yes we disagree. If a fella brought his secretary to the congregation while his wife and kids begged him to come home and be a husband and a Father, we would have to say to such a man, you are not accepted here. Maybe you don’t like that perspective but I feel it is in line with Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 and a necessary response to nonreptant gross sin.
LIonel-
Our disagreement was over the Matthew passage personal offenses. We were and I’m sure still are in agreement over 1 Cor 5. The misuse of the Matt passage is very arbitrary according to the shunner personal list of unacceptabvle sins or grievances.
Jesus did not directly denounce a lot of things, but that does not undue what He did say.
Zens and others have written very good books on how Christ elevated His tecahing over the Mosaic Law, you ahev heard that it was said Eye for Eye tooth for tooth, But I say to you.
The empowerment to express a new nature in Christ also did not occur until the official start of the New Covenant and the outpouring of Christs Spirit, that enables us to love God, Neighbor, Brother and Enemy. Christs teaching are sometimes hard to accept for belivers they are impossible to accept for unbelievers.
Christians respond to their enemies the way Christ commanded.
Unbelievers express the fallen sinful nature by responding in accordance to the fallen kingdoms of this world by using violence.
I know its hard, and the problem is multiplied when so many bible teachers do not understand the difference between the kingdoms of this World and teh Kingdom of God that does not appear upon careful observation but is within God’s children through His Spirit and they even encourage young men and women to kill their enemies by serving in a fallen world powers war machine instead of following Christ and loving their enemies.
So again, if we used Matt’s passage as a shunning device (which it is not, but you think it is) then we would need to discipline and remove such people from the assembly.
So as you ahve demonstrated, you would pick and chose which commands of Christ you would ignore the violation of in your arbitrary shunning procedure.
Jon-
What did Jesus say and do when the sword was used in that fashion later that night?
What do you think the purpose of the two swords being present was? Hint: Its indicated by Christ in the same section.
I like this discussion as we learn to read scripture in context and in light of the events played out we learn to stop piecing fragments of unrelated scriptures together to form a doctrine that does not exist.
That way I’m not just answering the question for you and you can learn and see it for yourself.
Also it keeps me from being the only one answering questions. You will actualy answer mine, I will answer yours and we will have a conversation and not just an inquiry.
Please take a stab at the questions above and the ones from yesterday and then I will answer your question about why the swords needed to be in the garden.
Hutch,
Given Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 I disagree that all forms of war are uncacceptable.
Secondly I think as Christians we still have an obligation to protect the innocent and if necessary use force. Would you disagree with that?
I still disagree with your perspective on Matthew.
Hutch,
Jesus did not forbid him from carrying a sword, however, it was not the appropriate time to use it for Christ had to be crucified.
So what is the meaning of vs 36 when Jesus says to buy a sword if you do not have one?
BTW (This may have some relevance in the discussion)
In Matt 8:10 the centurion is said to have great faith but is not condemed for being an officer in the Roman army and having soldiers under his authority.
Lionel-
Romans 13 & 1 Peter tells us as Christians not to suffer for wrongdoing at the hands of the governing authorities, it does not contradict Christs’ teachings by indicating that Christians are to wield the sword against their enemies.
If I saw somebody being attacked or physically abused I would remove that person from the situation and call the police, I would get in between the victim and the perp so the victim could run and escape while the perp was busy with me, but I would not inflict violence upon him, we are not to return evil with evil but to overcome evil with good and love. Sometimes that means we will get hurt or maybe even killed. But since we serve a different kingdom it will just be a promotion. Again, this is not natural, its supernatural only those who have a new nature in Christ can express it. The kingdoms of this world never will, they will do teh natural thing and not obey Christ.
Jon-
Again, here are the questions, the answer to your questions are contained within, if you take the time to walk through this you will discover the answer to why Christ did not just permit the swords, but the reason He indicated those swords had to be there.
What did Jesus say and do when the sword was used in that fashion later that night?
What do you think the purpose of the two swords being present was? Hint: Its indicated by Christ in the same section.
Here is the text:
Luke 22:35-38 (New American Standard Bible)
35And He said to them, “(A)When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.”
36And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37″For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘(B)AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for (C)that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.”
38They said, “Lord, look, here are two (D)swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
Hutch,
Yep we see things differently here. I am not picking and choosing just coming to a different conclusion.
Lionel-
Yes, I know you still disagree with me on Matt’s text but we are in equally good company on that one, I know committed Christians who understand it your way and I know committed Christians who understand it my way…even some whom you have greta respect for.
My point was just to make you aware that you will be selective in what you decide to shun someone over as you do not agree that something is sin that is a violation of Christ’s explicit commands.
Thats the only purpose of my comment. You will pick and chose depending on your understanding at that time what you will and will not enforce, while at the same time not rebuking another for their clear violation of Chrit’s teaching.
That’s all.
Glad that ahs been established.
No problem Hutch.
God hates war, but he looks at soldiers killing in battle differently than murder. He says that “The government doesn’t bear the sword in vain” and Jesus never told the Roman Centurian or any other soldiers to stop being a soldier. War is part of this corrupt world system, it will be with us until the Lord returns.