BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD REGULATE

                              CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE

 

 

Introduction.  We find ourselves in an unusual season as a church during which we are having to grapple in a new way with the biblical principles which should regulate corrective church discipline.  Therefore, it is my purpose in this study to take up the subject of corrective church discipline (as opposed to direct divine discipline or ongoing formative discipline).  As I do so, I want to make it clear that I will not in any way be comprehensive, and will purposefully be focusing on passages of Scripture and general biblical principles which I believe are specially relevant to our present situation.

 

In approaching the subject of corrective church discipline in the Bible, it is important to up front recognize that we are not provided in our Bibles with a detailed manual of how to carry out church discipline.  Rather, we are given a number of passages where we find more specific examples of corrective discipline cases.  From these examples we are left as local churches to glean the general biblical principles which should regulate church discipline cases, and then to apply those biblical principles to the specific cases which confront us - cases which may not exactly parallel any of the biblical examples which have been provided.  One writer has correctly observed:

 

            It would be impracticable to attempt to specify all possible occasions when labor might be called for in this line of irregular Christian conduct.  The Church must judge each individual case on its merits, and decide whether discipline be needed, and if so, to what extent.[1]

 

In our church constitution we have sought to outline some of the key biblical principles which should regulate corrective church discipline and to set up a general framework for applying those principles based on the past experiences of ourselves and others.  However, it is impossible in a constitution to anticipate every kind of corrective discipline situation which may confront a local church, and thus it is very possible that our constitution may at points fail to adequately provide for the handling of specific discipline cases which we face.  Here is a further reason why we are seeking to afresh return to consider general biblical principles, since the Scriptures alone, and not any man-made document, must always be our final court of authority for our faith and practice.

 

 

Part One.  As we take up our study, I am going to first of all be directing your attention to two key passages of God's Word and asking and answering questions as we seek to open up and understand those passages.  When we think of corrective church discipline, the two key passages in the New Testament which generally spring to mind are Matthew 18:15-18 and I Corinthians 5:1-13.  We are especially going to focus upon these two passages, drawing upon other passages as well where appropriate.  So let us take up the first one:

 

 

I.          In Matthew 18:15-18 we read:

 

            If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.  But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.  Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

 

Let us consider a number of questions about this passage.  First:

 

            A.        What kind of sin is here in view?

 

                        1.         It is a definite sin - a violation of the moral law of God - although its exact identity is left vague and general.

 

                        2.         The offense is possibly one personally against the one called upon to first address it, depending on what we conclude about the textual variant at this point.  This issue is not totally clear.

 

                        3.         What is clear is that the offense is a more private one as opposed to a public one, meaning that the knowledge of it is more limited.  Calvin provides a helpful description of this distinction:

 

            . . . some sins are public; others, private or somewhat secret.  Public sins are those witnessed not by one or two persons, but committed openly and to the offense of the entire church.  I call secret sins, not those completely hidden from men . . ., but those of an intermediate sort, which are not unwitnessed, yet not public.[2]

 

This all leads to our next question:

 

            B.  On what basis do we conclude that this was a private as opposed to a public offense?

 

                        1.  There is the obviously widening scope of those involved in trying to bring the offense to biblical resolution, beginning with the one man aware of the matter going alone, continuing, if necessary, with his taking one or two more as witnesses, and ultimately leading, if necessary, to telling it to the entire church.

 

                        2.         Especially the step of telling it to the church implies that before this time the church more generally was not aware of the offense.

 

            C.        What is the ultimate or strongest punishment which the church may have to give in the case of offenses which originally were more private?

 

It is described in the words, "Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (vs. 17).  I.e., he is no longer a member of the church of Christ, but is placed among the lost outside the church - that which is often called "excommunication".

 

            D.        If the ultimate and solemn punishment of excommunication must be enacted, what is the reason or cause which makes it necessary in this example?

 

It is, in one word, impenitence.  The offender will not hear the brother who first comes alone, or the brother who returns with one or two others, or the entire church.  He does not repent.  Therefore, it is not the sin itself which here brings about excommunication.  It is rather the fact that the offender, when confronted, does not repent.

 

            E.         When, during the process outlined in Matthew chapter 18, does the offense clearly move from being a more private offense to being a more public one?

 

Once it has been told to the church.

 

At this point, there are some practical questions which arise regarding the making of sins known in a more public way to the church.  Let's briefly consider three of them here:

 

            F.         Is it necessary that every initially more private sin which would be scandalous if publicly known, be told to the church and thereby become more public knowledge?

 

                        1.         No, not necessarily.  We must again remember that the language describing the offense or sin in Matthew 18:15-18 is quite general, so serious sins which could be scandalous if known are not necessarily excluded from the procedures here outlined.  We must also not forget the principle of love covering sin to the extent possible, a theme which we will mention again in a little bit.

 

Let me mention our own practice in the past, underscoring that the examples I am about to mention involved people who for a long time have not been members of this church.  There is the example of a young, unmarried dating couple who are guilty of secret fornication, and then in some way or other end up confessing it privately to a pastor.  There is also the example of the husband who has visited prostitutes secretly for sinful sexual interaction short of intercourse who on his own comes forward and confesses his sins to his wife and a pastor, giving hopeful signs of repentance.  In such cases in the past, your elders have believed that the principles and procedures of Matthew chapter 18 did apply.  Therefore, they have concluded that they were not required to bring such more private sins to the attention of the congregation as long as there were good reasons to believe that there had been repentance and as long as the sins did not become public knowledge, even though these sins were serious sins and would have been scandalous if known publicly.  I.e., our past practice has indicated that at least on some occasions there is room to view more private, potentially scandalous sins as fitting under the framework of Matthew chapter 18.

 

                        2.         However, if the originally more private, serious, potentially scandalous sin continues to be repeated after the initial hopeful signs of repentance, then the genuineness of the previous repentance is gravely in question, and the sin will have to be brought to the church.

 

                        3.         Also, if the previously more private, potentially scandalous sin becomes, or will become, publicly known - then it must be brought to the church.  Examples would include a case of fornication between a younger, unmarried couple which leads to a pregnancy which soon will be public, or where a man who was visiting a prostitute is arrested for soliciting a prostitute and his name ends up in the newspaper.  In such cases, not only must the church be told.  There will of necessity need to be a measure of more public corrective church discipline (at least a public rebuke) for the sake of the name of Christ and the testimony of His church among those who know the details, even if there are hopeful signs of repentance.

 

            G.        Are there some sins which, though previously more private and not widely-known, must be told to the church no matter whether the person has repented or not?

 

                        1.         Yes, where an officer of the church has sinned in such a way that he has violated the trust and duties of his office - especially when that sin brings into serious question his any longer continuing in office.  There is on the one hand the Old Testament example of David who horribly abused his authority as a king in Israel in order to commit both adultery and murder - the latter clearly being a civil crime.  This was a sin which could not remain hidden from public view, and God Himself exposed it.  Also, there is the New Testament example of Diotrophes in 3 John 9-10 who was abusing his office in the church including abusing church discipline (at least some of which surely was more public in nature).  John there said regarding this man, ". . . if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does".  Such abuse of church authority by her leader demanded a public unveiling of and dealing with such sins. 

 

                        2.         A further case where revelation is necessary no matter whether or not there is repentance is where the offense has been against a wider group of people, including cases where lies were told to this wider group which were initially unknown to them.  On the one hand we could consider the Old Testament example of Achan whose sin brought God's judgment on the whole nation, and whom God exposed before the entire nation.  There is also the New Testament example of Ananias and Sapphira whose lies to the whole church were again publicly exposed - in this case by divinely-wrought discipline.

 

In such cases as those outlined above it is not possible to keep the sin private, even if there are hopeful signs of repentance, because the very nature of the sin, combined in some cases with the identity of the sinner, requires public dealings.

 

            H.        Once the church has been told of the previously hidden sin and in this way it has become more public, does this mean that the members should feel free to tell others outside the membership about it, no matter what?

 

No, the church should still be careful to not broadcast the offense beyond its membership any more widely than necessary, for the sake of the name of Christ in the world,[3] and in order to biblically cover the sin as much as possible (more in a moment).

 

            I.          Once the previously private sin (including possibly, as we have observed, behavior which would be scandalous if openly known) has become more public by telling it to the church, does this mean that excommunication should immediately and automatically follow?

 

No, at least not according to Matthew chapter 18, for there is still opportunity given to hear the church and repent before excommunication takes place.  Furthermore, Matthew chapter 18 clearly implies that if the offender hears the church, excommunication should not follow.  So the fact that a sin - even a previously more private, potentially scandalous sin - has become more public, does not automatically mean that excommunication should take place, if we are referencing Matthew chapter 18.

 

            J.          If the last step in our text before excommunication is for the offender to hear the church, in what way(s) should the church speak?

 

There are at least two possible ways indicated in Scripture:

 

                        1.         A public rebuke and call upon the offender to repent may be adequate in some cases.  Here 1 Timothy 5:20 provides perhaps the clearest example in a case having to do with sinning elders:

 

            Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

 

                        2.         However, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 10-15 identifies another possible church action which is also less severe than excommunication, and which might be a way in which the church speaks:

 

            Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

 

            For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order:  if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.  For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.  Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.  But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.  If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.  Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

 

These disorderly brethren were to suffer social avoidance in addition to rebuke or admonition, but were still to be regarded as brothers in the Lord.  In other words, they were still viewed as church members, and not as excommunicated individuals.[4]  Yet there was a stricture or punishment of corrective church discipline - that of social avoidance here - in order that the disorderly ones might be put to shame.  One of the privileges of church membership - intimate fellowship socially - was here being suspended awaiting repentance.

 

Such a half measure short of excommunication has provided a basis for our practice of the suspension of some of the privileges of church membership in a number of cases where full excommunication does not yet seem warranted, but some form of stronger corrective discipline is in order.  Such a suspension of membership privileges, we believe, could also, in addition to rebuke, constitute the church speaking to an offender one last time before excommunication is actually enacted.

 

By way of summary, public rebuke and the suspension of some of the privileges of membership are two biblically-based ways in which the church may speak to the offender without advancing immediately to excommunication.  And if the offender hears the church, as evidenced by responding with clear fruits of repentance, no excommunication is warranted according to the text before us.

 

Before moving on to the second major text, let me try to summarize at least three general biblical principles which should regulate the exercise of corrective church discipline according to Matthew 18:15-18 (although more could be derived as well):

 

1.         We should seek to limit the knowledge of the offense in view to a circle no larger than the particular case demands.  Hopefully this is abundantly clear in the only gradually-widening circle of those aware of the offense laid out in our text.  This is but a specific application of the basic biblical principle contained in the following verses:

 

            . . . love covers all transgressions (Proverbs 10:12).

 

            . . . a prudent man conceals dishonor (Proverbs 12:16b).

 

            He who conceals a transgression seeks love . . . (Proverbs 17:9)

 

2.         Either the threat of a wider revealing of one's sin, or, failing that, the actual reality of the wider revealing of one's sin, is a powerful motivation to repent of one's sin.  Public shame and embarrassment are biblical and powerful motivators to repentance.  This is another striking indication of the steps laid out in Matthew chapter 18.  When individuals implement the first step, and then if necessary, the second step laid out here, and at the same time let it be known that this is the process being begun, the offender knows that if he does not repent and get serious while the matter is more private, it will become more public.  This is a powerful motivation to get right with God and men.  Furthermore, if the matter has to come before the entire church, and the entire church speaks to the offender about his sin, the fact that his sin has now become publicly known to the whole church bringing its reproach is also a powerful motivation to repent.

 

Someone may say, but is not the repentance of someone suspect if they had been covering their sin and then only repent once it has actually become public knowledge?  In order to answer that question, let us briefly notice two Old Testament examples where grievous sin was covered and then exposed to public view:

 

            a.         First, consider Achan as recorded in Joshua 7:1, 16-21:

 

            But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully in regard to the things under the ban, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the things under the ban, therefore the anger of the LORD burned against the sons of Israel

 

            So Joshua arose early in the morning and brought Israel near by tribes, and the tribe of Judah was taken.  He brought the family of Judah near, and he took the family of the Zerahites; and he brought the family of the Zerahites near man by man, and Zabdi was taken.  He brought his household near man by man; and Achan, son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, was taken.  Then Joshua said to Achan, "My son, I implore you, give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and give praise to Him; and tell me now what you have done.  Do not hide it from me."  So Achan answered Joshua and said, "Truly, I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel, and this is what I did:  when I saw among the spoil a beautiful mantle from Shinar and two hundred shekels of silver and a bar of gold fifty shekels in weight, then I coveted them and took them; and behold, they are concealed in the earth inside my tent with the silver underneath it"

 

Here Achan clearly covered his sin of taking some of the devoted things from Jericho, but the Lord used a crowbar to uncover the truth and expose it to all of Israel.  The crowbar which God used here was direct divine revelation in the form of a lot.  Only after this powerful crowbar was used did Achan admit that he had sinned against God and divulge the facts of his sin.  Did Achan here genuinely repent of his sin?  Although we are not for certain, if his words here reflect all that was in his heart, then he did not truly repent, but instead died in his sins.  This was because he did not admit that he deserved God's wrath for his sins, he did not indicate that he wanted to turn his back on his sins, and he did not ask God to forgive him and have mercy on his soul.  Based on this example, someone might say, See, here is apparently proof that a constrained admission of sin should be regarded as not being genuine.  But there is a second Old Testament example which also must be considered:

 

            b.         David as recorded in 2 Samuel 12:1, 5-15a:

 

            Then the LORD sent Nathan to David.  And he came to him and said,  "There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor.  . . ."

 

            Then David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die.  He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion."  Nathan then said to David, "You are the man!  Thus says the LORD God of Israel, `It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul.  I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!  Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight?  You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.  Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'  Thus says the LORD, `Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.  Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"  Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."  And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.  However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."  So Nathan went to his house.

 

David had long sought to cover up his sin of adultery and murder, for Nathan says in verse 12 that he did his sin secretly.  The crowbar that the LORD used here to uncover the truth of David's sin and to ultimately expose it before everyone in Israel was the same basic powerful crowbar He had used to uncover Achan's sin - direct revelation from God through His inspired prophet crystallized in the words, "You are the man! (vs. 7).[5]  I.e., it took no less of a crowbar to uncover David's sin and to bring him to admit it than it took to do the same with Achan.  Interestingly, David's admission that he had sinned, as recorded, was actually shorter than that of Achan's.  Yet he apparently genuinely repented of his sin here, because according to verse 13, the Lord, who could perfectly see his heart, had taken away his sin.

 

In summary, although the excruciating pressure of the public exposure of the truth of one's awful sins probably did not bring about true repentance on the part of Achan, it definitely did do so on the part of David.  Therefore, it is wrong to just write off the professed repentance of one who is constrained to it by the pressure of the exposure of his previously-covered sins.  Such a public revelation is intended by God to be a powerful motivation to repent.

 

However, we are in some ways at a disadvantage in our era of redemptive history, for we do not see the heart as God sees, and we are no longer receiving direct revelations from God to tell us if the constrained professions of repentance by church members are genuine.  Therefore, while we on the one hand cannot just write off the professed repentance of the church member caught red-handed in serious sin after long covering it up, we on the other hand cannot rush to judgment and need time to evaluate the professed repentance, since it may not be genuine.

 

It is for this reason that we have provided in our constitution for the suspension of some of the privileges of membership in cases where there has been a scandalous sin, yet now are hopeful (although not conclusive) signs of repentance:

 

            If a member has sinned scandalously but shows hopeful signs of repentance, including submission to the elders, it may still be prudent to suspend him for a time so that he may clearly manifest repentance (Matt. 3:8), so that reproach not be brought upon the Name of Christ and the church (2 Sam. 12:14; Rom. 2:24), and so that others may not be emboldened to sin (1 Tim. 5:20).  If fruits worthy of repentance are not forthcoming, the elders may recommend to the church at a later date that this person be excommunicated according to the procedure outlined in Paragraph B, 4, b of this Article.[6]

 

Because of the gravity of the sin, combined with the fact that it is too early to conclude whether or not the professed repentance is genuine, some form of corrective discipline may be in order even when there is an initial profession of repentance.  Remember that David, even after genuinely repenting, still experienced severe consequences for his serious sins, although they were less than the ultimate penalty of death.

 

3.         From what we have seen thus far, it appears that the ultimate punishment or stricture of excommunication is warranted only where there is no repentance for the sin(s) at issue.  At this point there are those who would disagree, and especially point to the other key passage dealing with corrective church discipline - 1 Corinthians chapter 5 - as an example of an alternative where there may be excommunication without regard to whether or not the offender has at least professed repentance.  We will look at that important text shortly.

 

But let me at this point turn you to two other passages first which show that this principle of no excommunication unless there is impenitence is not just limited to the case of private sins as outlined in Matthew 18:15-18, but is actually a more extensive principle of the Word of God.

 

            a.         Titus 3:10-11 directs:

 

            Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

 

Is being a factious or divisive man in Christ's church a serious sin in the eyes of God?  It certainly is, for if you remember, the Lord in 1 Corinthians 3:17 in a context where strife and division were a problem declares:

 

            If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

 

However, serious as being a factious or divisive person is, it is not a reason for immediate excommunication according to Titus 3:10-11 until there has first been a first and second warning.  This reality implies that, if the factious man repents after receiving either of the warnings and stops being a factious person, the rejection of excommunication would not be necessary or appropriate.  Here the principle of excommunication only where there is impenitence is again underscored.  But notice another interesting passage as well:

 

            b.         2 Corinthians 12:21 - 13:2:

 

            I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.  This is the third time I am coming to you.  EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.  I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone.

 

First of all, it should be noted that here Paul apparently was speaking as an Apostle of Jesus Christ regarding church discipline which he would take the lead in enacting, if necessary, when he arrived.  Corrective church discipline is clearly in view, since Paul in an epistle to a local church quotes in 13:1 the same legal principle for establishing facts by two or three witnesses which was referenced by Jesus regarding church discipline in Matthew 18:16, and since he speaks of not sparing when he comes (13:2).  This discipline was to be worked out in a Corinthian church which apparently was still in some ways negligent in carrying out corrective church discipline (cp. 1 Corinthians 5:1ff).

 

What then were the sins which were especially a concern here?  The Apostle Paul indicates that he feared there would be those still practicing the sins of impurity, immorality and sensuality which some of them had formerly been practicing (12:21; cp. 1 Corinthians 6:15-20).  At least some of these sins surely would have been scandalous sins if they were known publicly, for the second word, "immorality" (translated "fornication" in the old King James Version) stands for sexual immorality more generally considered, and can include such vile forms as incest, prostitution and adultery.  Interestingly, this term is the same word found in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (2 times) and 6:13 & 18.  Notice further that these Corinthians had not yet been excommunicated for these sins.  Otherwise, "sparing not" according to 13:2 would have no meaning, since excommunication is the most severe punishment available in corrective church discipline.  Also observe the clear indication that Paul would be kept from "sparing not" in discipline when he came if they repented before that time (12:21).  Let me underscore here that, regarding sins which surely in some cases would have been scandalous if known, Paul did not say that he would excommunicate them when he came, no matter whether they professed repentance or not, since they had sinned scandalously.  Rather he here warned them to repent before he came so he would not have to deal more severely with them.  The mere fact that a scandalous sin had taken place did not cancel out the general biblical principle of Matthew 18:15-18 that excommunication is to take place only where there is impenitence.  So we have further confirmation of our third general principle.

 

With this data before us, let's now take up the second major text in our New Testaments having to do with corrective church discipline:

 

 

II.        1 Corinthians 5:1-13:

 

            It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife.  You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.  For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.  In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

            Your boasting is not good,  Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?  Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened.  For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.  Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.  I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.  But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.  For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Do you not judge those who are within the church?  But those who are outside, God judges.  REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

 

Here we will once again consider a number of questions.  First:

 

            A.        What is the punishment of church discipline which is here in view?

 

It is clearly excommunication as indicated by the following phrases:

 

                        1.         "removed from your midst" (5:2)

 

                        2.         "deliver such a one to Satan" (5:5)

 

                        3.         "REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES" (5:13)

 

            B.        What is the primary example of sin here which is the focus in this excommunication?