This article is a continuation of our series on church leadership, as follows…
Part I, A Philosophy / Theology of Church Leadership.
1. The purposes of the church.
2. Formulating a philosophy of church ministry.
3. Christian leaders and leadership: Their definition and characteristics.
4. Pastoral leadership.
Part II, Strengthening Church Relationships.
1. Improving church communications.
2. Dealing with church discipline.1
3. Managing church conflict.
4. Leading your church through change.
Last time, I addressed the first article in Part II: “Improving Church Communications.” Today, we come to the second article: “Dealing With Church Discipline.”
The topic of church discipline is not popular especially in today’s society where, often, anything goes and where there are no absolute moral standards. But this is a necessary topic to discuss and understand because it is biblical, it deals with issues that may dishonor the Lord’s name, it affects the spiritual health and future of the church, and it can cause harm to others in the church.
None of us likes to discipline someone else or be disciplined ourselves. Sometimes, when parents are about to discipline their children, they say, “This hurts me more than it hurts you.” At a physical level I’m not sure that’s true, but at an emotional level we understand the sentiment expressed. We don’t like disciplining our children, but sometimes it needs to be done for the benefit of the child and the family. Hebrews 12:5-11 says, “5 My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives…11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”
Christians are commanded to carry out self-discipline in order to maintain lives which are holy and acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 11:28). It is an affront to God to bring sin into his presence. This is particularly evident in the context of the remembrance of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-32). To bring sin into the presence of God, at the very ordinance that celebrates the death of Christ for our sins, is an insult to the work of Christ. It manifests no spiritual sensitivity to, or consciousness of, the One whose presence we are in and what we are commemorating.
As in our personal lives, so in our corporate church life, sin must be dealt with. Corporately, the church is commanded to exercise discipline (Matt. 18; Acts 5; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:14) in order to maintain the holiness of the body of Christ. Matthew 18 deals with the instance of one brother sinning against another and the process for the restoration of personal harmony through repentance by the offending party and the forgiveness by the offended party. If such harmony of relationship cannot be restored at a personal level, then the sin becomes a matter for the church to deal with, since such sin cannot be left unjudged. Thus, the final “court of appeal” is the church.
This is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 6 where Paul rebukes individuals in the church for suing each other in court rather than bringing the matters before the assembly for judgment. All church discipline should take place within the local church, which is responsible for dealing with all matters that affect the purity of the assembly whether generated at the individual relationship level or at the corporate level.
One of the characteristics of this subject of church discipline is that it is sadly missing today in many evangelical churches, which, undoubtedly, contributes to the weakness and decline in so many churches. The Reformers said that there were three marks of a church: (1) Preaching the Word (edification of believers and evangelization of the lost); (2) The administration of the sacraments; and (3) The exercise of discipline.
Relevant Scriptures for this topic include: Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:1-13; 6:1-20; 11:27-32; 2 Corinthians 2:3-11; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; 1 Timothy 1:20; 5:17-20 (elders); Titus 3:10; Hebrews 12:3-11; James 5:19-20.
I. The Reasons For Church Discipline
It is the responsibility of the church to carry out church discipline where and when necessary for several reasons…
1. To preserve the holiness of the body of Christ and the Lord’s glory. This is the primary purpose of church discipline. The body of Christ is the temple of God, “which body you are” (1 Cor. 3:17), just as our bodies are “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19). The church of God, as the temple of God, is a holy place because it is where God dwells and God is absolutely holy and cannot tolerate sin.
God is totally identified with his people. He indwells us corporately (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16-17) and he indwells us individually by his Holy Spirit and by Christ himself (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:15-20; Eph. 3:17; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Jn. 4:13). Such is the union between Christ and his people that “as he is, so are we in this world” (1 Jn. 4:17). And again, “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him” (1 Cor. 6:17).
We are united with Christ and are a direct reflection of him. Therefore, we cannot persist in unjudged sin and at the same time be a true reflection of the nature and character of God. As his people and his dwelling place, God requires that we reflect his nature and character here. Thus, we are commanded to be holy “as (God) is holy” (1 Pet. 1:16). This applies individually and corporately. To be anything other than holy people is to contradict who we are as redeemed people who belong to God – “You were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).
We must always judge sin. The proper place for sin to be judged is in our individual lives before it ever becomes a matter for church discipline. But some Christians lose their sensitivity to sin – perhaps because they wander away from God; or don’t spend time with God; or lose their initial love for God; or Satan gains an advantage over them etc. When we grow distant from God and “leave our first love” (Rev. 2:4) we become hardened to sin and to the holiness of God. That’s why it is so important to maintain daily quiet times with God, reading his Word and praying, in order to maintain intimacy with God.
If sin is allowed in our individual lives, it may and can easily become defiling to the whole body of Christ in the local church (1 Cor. 5:6-8). Therefore, if that happens it is the responsibility of the church to “purge out the leaven” (1 Cor. 5:7) of sin. Robert Saucy writes: “Failure to discipline evidences a lack of awareness of the holy character of God” (“The Church in God’s Program,” 120).
Sins may be contained either within the assembly or they may spread outside the assembly into the community. Regardless, if they are not judged the testimony of the local church is brought into disrepute (e.g. through fraudulent or immoral behavior), the Lord’s glory is tarnished, the church becomes defiled, and God’s people are harmed. Therefore, church discipline is necessary (1) To preserve and honor God’s holiness; (2) To reflect the nature and character of God and his glory; and (3) To protect the spiritual health of God’s people in the local church. If sin is not judged, the rest of the church becomes defiled by association, and others may become embroiled in sin themselves if they see that the church takes a light view of sin – this actually happened in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1-2) – and because they are attracted by the pleasures of sin as demonstrated in the other sinning Christians in the church.
2. To carry out what God has commanded us to do. The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of his body, the church, and he has commanded us to exercise discipline in the church. “Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12-13). God uses us as his agents of discipline in the church. Notice the twofold authority for carrying out discipline in the local church according to Matthew 18:15-20…
(a) The authority of Christ’s presence in the “midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). He cannot tolerate sin and, since he is present, sin must be put out. Christ’s presence among several believers constitutes that group of believers into a local church and authorizes their church discipline.
Christ’s presence in the assembly empowers such action: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Christ, as the Son over his own house (Heb. 3:6), exercises discipline in his church. He is the disciplinarian of his church: “Whom I love I rebuke and chasten” (Rev. 3:19).
(b) The authority of heaven (Matt. 18:18). Where Christ is present (i.e. in a duly constituted local church), and where the church is agreed on the course of disciplinary action, the church has divine authority for so doing – the action is ratified in heaven: “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
3. To restore the sinning brother or sister in love. Just as parents discipline their children because they love them, so God disciplines his children because he loves them (as we already saw in Heb. 12:5-11). We experience the chastening hand of God both in our individual lives (Heb. 12:6) and corporate lives (1 Cor. 11:30), because we are members of his family individually and corporately.
Parental discipline is remedial. It has in view the restoration of the erring member of the family to a proper relationship with the parents and family. Similarly, church discipline is remedial. The church has a responsibility to discipline those who sin in order that they may be “partakers of his holiness,” which process “yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness” (Heb. 12:10-11). In other words, because we love the people of God, we want to see them live as spiritually healthy, responsible, mature, holy people.
The purpose of church discipline, as it affects the offender, is to restore that person to spiritual wholeness and to become, once again, a fully functioning member of the church (Gal. 6:1; James 5:19-20). If you do that, you have “gained your brother” (Matt. 18:15).
4. To ensure that only believers are church members. When a church member acts like an unbeliever (i.e. commits repeated, unconfessed, public sin about which he / she is not repentant), we have no reason to believe that he / she is a Christian – “by their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:16). If such becomes the case, they need to be removed from church membership until such time as they prove that they are a believer and have truly repented and been restored to the Lord, to their family, and to the fellowship.
5. To warn others. Paul’s admonition to the Church at Corinth evidently had this effect: “For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11). Again, “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:10). And again, “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all” (1 Thess. 5:14).
Conclusions. The purpose of church discipline is to protect the honor of the Lord’s name by: (1) Clearing the church of sin-by-association – i.e. association with those who bring public dishonor on the Lord’s name / testimony; (2) Protecting the members of the church from those who might have a negative influence in the church; and (3) Restoring those who have sinned to full communion with God and the church.
II. The Scope Of Church Discipline
Scripture is not definitive in telling us what sins the church is responsible for judging. The early church practiced church discipline (1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 1:20), but evidently at Corinth there was more sin than the immorality of the man in 1 Corinthians 5, like divisions and disorderly conduct.
Obviously, the church is not responsible for sins of which it is unaware. Many sins in the lives of individuals never become public either because of the private nature of their sin. or because the individual took personal self-disciplinary action against their sin. Further, if a believer sins, and he / she repents of that sin, such sin should not be made public unless it is of a public nature (such as a criminal act, or if the sin is commonly known in the community).
If not dealt with privately (and I would argue that, wherever possible, sin should be dealt with privately), Scripture mentions certain types of sin which require church discipline, although we should not take this as an exhaustive list…
1. Sins against individuals. These are sins that have been committed directly against an individual. Those that are against an individual fall under the category of “if your brother sins against you” (Matt. 18:15-17). Often personal interrelationships are ignored and people go on for years harboring bad feelings toward each other without dealing with them. This inhibits the work of the Holy Spirit and the general spirituality of the church. Thus, personal sins directly against an individual must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure of Matthew 18 and if they are unresolved privately, they must come before the church.
2. Sins of personal irresponsibility. The general category of irresponsibility disorderly conduct seems to include such things as not working to earn a living (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). From such irresponsible, disorderly persons they were “to keep away” (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Sins of divisiveness. Divisiveness might be arguing about things that are unprofitable, In the 1st century, genealogies seem to have fallen into that category (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4-5; Tit. 3:9). After admonishing such a person two times, they were to reject that person (Tit. 3:10; see also Rom. 16:17-18).
4. Sins of the flesh. These include sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, drunkenness etc. (see 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21).
5. Sins of false teaching. These are teachings concerning fundamental truths (see 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; Rev. 2:14-16), not differences of opinion on Scriptural interpretation of minor issues.
III. The Responsibility For Church Discipline
Discipline all begins at the personal level with each of us judging ourselves. However, should such self-discipline not be exercised or successful, then the responsibility for carrying out discipline at various levels and in various forms falls into three categories…
1. The person sinned against. If the sin involves an offence committed by one person against another, then the person sinned against is obligated to begin the discipline process in the form of personal remonstrance with the offender. The objective here is that the one who initiates the restoration process “gains” his brother / sister if he / she will listen and respond positively (Matt. 18:15).
2. Third party intervention. If personal remonstrance does not work, then discipline becomes a matter that requires the intervention of others. This is a sort of mediation process where “those who are spiritual” (Gal. 6:1) seek to restore a sinning brother or sister. Those who are spiritual are those who manifest the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). While the holiness of the Lord’s table is the responsibility of every member of the church, not all members of the church are qualified to carry out this intervention – only “those who are spiritual.” This step of third party intervention is designed to still try to resolve the matter privately.
3. The church as a whole. If personal remonstrance and third party intervention does not work, then the matter needs to come before the church for the judgement of all.
IV. The Procedure For Church Discipline
The procedure for carrying out church discipline falls into two general levels…
A. Individual Self-Discipline.
Example: Eating and drinking the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner (1 Cor. 11:27-32). Notice that in Corinth, they were turning what was supposed to be a remembrance of the Lord into a disorderly feast at which some went hungry others became drunk. It wasn’t a remembrance of the Lord at all. This is called “eating and drinking in an unworthy manner.” Such behavior renders the believer guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord by desecrating something that is holy.
Notice, that it does not say: “Let such a person examine himself and then stay away, or abstain from the Lord’s table.” No, you are to examine yourself (i.e. confess and judge known sin in your life) and then “eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28). The purpose of this self-judgement is to put yourself into a state where you are worthy to participate at the Lord’s table.
To eat and drink in an unworthy manner is to partake of the Lord’s supper with unjudged sin in your life, or acting at the Lord’s supper in such a way as to dishonor the Lord. If such behavior is persisted in (without self-discipline which leads to repentance), then the end result may be the direct discipline of God (1 Cor. 11:30). To bring sin into the presence of the Lord’s table where we are remembering what it cost the Lord to cleanse them from sin is utterly abhorrent to God and may lead to direct divine judgment (see below under “Intervention by God himself in the church”).
B. Third Party Intervention.
When it is recognized either by an individual or the leadership of a church that a believer is practicing sin (i.e. that there is unjudged, repeated sin in his or her life), that person needs to be confronted about it. There are two types of third party intervention – individual and collective.
1. Individual intervention.
Example: Matthew 18:15-17. The sin here is that of one person sinning against another. While the sin involved here is not stated, it must have been of some major significance (not a minor misunderstanding) to warrant this disciplinary action. The process of discipline in this instance is to be initiated by the individual who has been sinned against.
The process here follows four steps…
Step 1: Private remonstrance. The one who has been sinned against initiates the discipline by telling the offender his sin and urging his repentance. Private remonstrance is so important – to clarify issues, to appeal to the heart, to address misunderstandings. It has the greatest possibility of a positive outcome.
Step 2: Private remonstrance with witnesses. If the sinning brother will not listen and respond, the offended person must try again by taking witnesses with him.
Step 3: Public remonstrance before the church. If the sinning brother still will not respond, the matter is brought before the church. Prior to this, if the desired result of repentance is obtained, the offence does not become a matter for public church involvement.
Step 4: Excommunication. If the offender still does not respond, the church may need to act in excommunication, depending on the nature of the offence. If excommunication is required, he / she is to be treated “as” an unbeliever (i.e. as a pagan or tax collector who obviously could not be members of the church).
The goal of this procedure is not excommunication but restoration – to win the sinning believer back; to give him an opportunity to repent (Matt. 18:15). Indeed, one of the purposes of all discipline is to restore the sinning believer. In this instance of a sin by an individual against another individual, if the sinning believer repents (when confronted), the one offended can and should grant forgiveness. If that is the result, then there is no need for the matter to become public before the church – you have won your brother. In the event you do not win your brother, the public aspect of church discipline begins when the church leaders bring the matter before the church as a whole (see below, “Collective Intervention”).
Other examples for your private study: Luke 17:3b-4; Galatians. 6:1-5; Galatians 2:11-14; Philippians 4:2. When studying these texts, ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
2. Collective intervention.
Collective intervention may be initiated (1) by the leaders of the church only; or (2) if the matter is not resolved, by the church acting as a whole. If the church does not take this disciplinary action, God himself may intervene (see below “Intervention by God Himself in the Church”). This action is to be taken only when all other avenues for correction are exhausted without success. Prior to this the discipline is carried out at a private level.
This process is reflected in Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth, that corporate action takes place when they are “gathered together” in assembly to take action against the offender (1 Cor. 5:4-5) – i.e. they are taking action as a church (2 Cor. 2:6).
Similarly, the churches as a whole at Thessalonica (2 Thess. 3:6-15) and Rome (Rom. 16:17) were ordered to take action against those who needed discipline. Church discipline is an action of the church as a whole because that is where the authority lies, in the church as a whole where Christ is in the midst (Matt. 18:20).
When a local church takes disciplinary action against one of its members that action is binding on all other churches because it is an action taken in the name (by the power) of Christ as the Lord of the church (cf. 1 Cor. 5:4b), which action is bound (ratified) in heaven (Matt. 18:18-19). Similarly, just as the act of discipline is an act of the whole church, so the act of restoration is also the act of the whole church – the “many” who discipline must “forgive him, and comfort him” and confirm their “love to him” (2 Cor. 2:6-8). (See Robert Saucy, 122).
a) Intervention By Leaders Of The Church.
Example: 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. The sins involved here were (1) the sin of idleness (3:6-7); (2) the sin of freeloading from others (3:8); and (3) the sin of gossiping, meddling (3:11). In such a case, the person needs to be instructed to obey God’s word and change his / her ways (3:12). If the sinning person does not respond positively to the admonition of the other brothers, they were to “keep away from him…have nothing to do with him that he may be ashamed” (3:6, 14). This does not appear to be complete shunning, but a distancing from him as a warning of the seriousness of his sinful behavior (3:15).
Other examples for your private study: 1 Timothy 5:19-20; Titus 3:10-11; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Titus 1:10-14.
When studying these texts, again ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
b) Intervention by the Church Acting as a Whole.
Example: Matthew 18:15-20. I dealt with this text earlier under individual intervention. But I mentioned then that this is also applicable to collective intervention since that is the last stage of unsuccessful private intervention. After steps one and two (above) have been taken, the matter is to be brought before the church, the goal of which is still to “gain your brother” (18:15), to restore him to the Lord and to the church. But if the individual refuses to listen even to the church (i.e. he / she does not repent and seek forgiveness), then they are to be treated as a pagan and tax collector (18:17).
Other examples for your private study: 1 Corinthians 5:1-12; 2 Corinthains 2:5-11. Note the connection between these two texts: 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 is the follow-up text to 1 Corinthians 5:1-12. In 1 Corinthians 5, the church was to act as a whole in disciplining the sinning brother which, in that case, was excommunication. Note that excommunication included the withdrawal of social interaction (1 Corinthians 5:11). However, by the time Paul wrote 2 Corinthians 2 his instruction to the church concerning the discipline of the sinning brother had been obeyed and the results had been positive (the offending brother had evidently repented) but the church had not extended their forgiveness and comfort (2:7-11), which they needed to do lest the repentant brother be “overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” (2:7). When the desired result of discipline has been achieved, the relationship between the parties needs to be restored.
Again, when studying these texts, ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
c) Intervention by God himself in the Church.
Example #1: 1 Corinthians 11:30. I mentioned this text earlier under “individual self-discipline,” but I wanted to add here that when that form of discipline does not take place voluntarily, then God may act in direct judgement on certain individuals in the church. The judgement that evidently took place at Corinth was God’s judgement in the form of illness, weakness, and even death of the unrepentant individuals.
Example #2: Acts 5:1-10. I suppose that you could classify this instance as either (1) individual intervention by Peter himself; or (2) public intervention since Peter acted in public, presumably because of the nature of the sin; or (3) intervention by Christ through the Holy Spirit the result of which was the instant death of the offenders, Ananias and Sapphira.
Again, when studying these texts, ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
V. Forms Of Church Discipline
In examining the Scripture texts above, we have touched on the forms of church discipline, but I want to look at these forms as a separate category. There are several Scriptural forms of church discipline which seem to vary according to the offence. The difficult question is: Are these forms of discipline universal practices or are they temporal – i.e. should we have different forms today that are more culturally relevant?
1. Warning and Withdrawal.
a) Warning. Those who “walk disorderly” (1 Thess. 5:14) need to be warned about their lifestyle and where it may lead if not judged by them.
b) Withdrawal. Warning may be followed by withdrawal. Withdrawal may take different forms, for example (1) Withdrawal of certain church privileges (like serving in a ministry); (2) The removal of social fellowship if the warning does not have its desired effect (2 Thess. 3:6-15). This action of removal from social fellowship tells the offender that his sin has caused a practical severance of harmony in the body – i.e. that his actions are offensive to the other members of the body. In that case, he is to be treated as one who needs to be publicly shamed into recognition of his sin (2 Thess. 3:14). Nonetheless, unlike Matthew 18:17, the offender was not to be regarded as an enemy or unbeliever but warned as a brother (2 Thess. 3:15). This action takes place before (and, hopefully without) actual excommunication.
2. Excommunication (1 Cor. 5:1-13; Matt. 18:17b; 1 Tim. 1:20).
This is the action of last resort, when all pleadings and admonitions have not worked. Putting someone out of the protective sphere of the church is to effectively deliver them into the sphere of Satan “for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20). There is some debate as to what this actually means. Perhaps it means, as Robert Saucy writes, that “Satan becomes the instrument in God’s hand by which God inflicts some kind of physical punishment” (Saucy, 123). Presumably, the final and most severe form of the destruction of the flesh is death (1 Cor. 11:30). Or, perhaps it means that the offender is placed in the sphere of Satan (i.e. in the world) where he / she is neither protected by the church nor enjoys the privileges of church membership, which place exposes the reality of their sin very graphically and, thus, breaks down the flesh so that sin is no longer attractive or pleasurable to them. Of course, the desired result of this discipline is not the permanent removal of the offender, nor their death, but their restoration (1 Cor. 11:32b; 5:5b; 1 Tim. 1:20b).
The word “put away” (1 Cor. 5:13) in the Greek means “to remove, drive away.” Here, Paul gives two short summary statements: First, about those who were “outside” the church (2 Cor. 5:12a), unbelievers on whom the church does not pass judgement because they are not part of the church. Second, about those who were “inside” the church (2 Cor. 5:12b-13), those whom they must judge (e.g. the incestuous man). The assembly of God’s people is duty bound to judge “those inside.”
The challenge with this instruction is how it should be carried out. This seems to be why some churches err on the side of so-called grace (“after all,” they argue, “we are all sinners, aren’t we?”) while others err on the side of legalism. The problem with both these positions is that they make no distinction between those “inside” and those “outside.” Gordon Fee summarizes it this way: “This is dealing with persistent wrongdoing of a kind wherein someone wants to have it both ways, to belong to the Christian community without leaving his / her former behavior behind. Such persistence demands discipline for the sake of both the person involved and the community” (NICNT, 228).
1 Corinthians 5:13 is the summary of all that Paul has been teaching in this chapter – namely, (1) “deliver such an one to Satan” (5:5); (2) “purge out the old leaven” (5:7); (3) “not to keep company with sexually immoral people” (5:9); (4) “not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler … not even to eat with such a person” (5:11). Clearly, Paul is referring to those who persist in this way of life. That’s the point. This person was openly, persistently living like a heathen person. And worse yet, the assembly was going along with it, even boasting of it! This is very significant in Paul’s treatment of this situation. This assembly did not have much in the way of moral or spiritual discernment. In fact, it was thoroughly toxic.
So, when we read this passage, we must be sure that we are reading it in its
context, and not arbitrarily applying it to situations for which it was not intended. This was gross, persistent, public immorality on the part of the brother, and gross negligence on the part of the assembly regarding their responsibility to maintain the Lord’s holiness and to do what has to be done to restore such a one.
Question #1: What does it mean “not to eat with such a person”? Certainly, it means that such a person was to be excluded from Christian fellowship meals (which the 1st century Christians had together in their homes – agape feasts) and from the Lord’s table (which often was celebrated along with the fellowship meals). But does this exclusion have in view private family meals? I think that the thrust of Paul’s argument has in view the action required by the church rather than its individual members – i.e. that the assembly as a community of faith must exclude the sinning brother from its community activities (namely, worship and instruction). Although this is not explicitly clear, 2 Thessalonians 3:15 would seem to support this viewpoint. By doing so, the assembly rids itself of sin in its midst. However, by not cutting the person off from all personal contact, we have the conduit left open to bring about his / her restoration.
It seems to me that rarely do we ever face the extraordinary circumstance as in 1 Corinthians 5. I certainly have never faced it in my lifetime. Therefore, we need to be very careful not to apply it inappropriately. There are, however, certain disciplinary obligations that we cannot ignore:
a) We need to exercise grace while at the same time guarding the Lord’s holiness.
b) We need to protect the assembly from sin in its midst so that the Lord’s table is not contaminated or desecrated by allowing sin in the very presence of the remembrance of our cleansing from sin by the atoning work of Christ.
c) We need to take action when necessary so that others are warned of the seriousness and consequences of persistent immorality (i.e. a way of life from which they will not turn after all possible remedies have been exhausted).
Question #2: Does this action infer total exclusion from the premises? Perhaps, if that is what it takes to accomplish what I have just outlined. While I think taking such drastic action would be rare, it would be appropriate in the extreme case of someone who is guilty, for example, of criminal behavior like sexual assault. What we must avoid at all cost is taking legalistic action – i.e. this person did this, therefore, we must excommunicate them. In my church experience, this approach does not accomplish what it is designed to do (namely, to rid the assembly of sin while also seeking the restoration of the sinning person) and it is often done in the wrong spirit. These situations require courage and humility to accomplish what is right for the Lord’s honor and for the assembly’s purity.
VI. The Spirit Of Church Discipline.
It is vital that church discipline be carried out in “a spirit of gentleness, keeping watch on yourself lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). This demands an attitude where love and humility are clearly manifested – love for the brother or sister and humility that but for the grace of God it could be us who is the offender. We are to deal with the offender just as the Lord deals with his children whom he loves. Again, the end result that is sought in discipline is restoration (Gal. 6:1) not destruction, punishment, permanent excommunication. The purpose is to win your brother (Matt. 18).
Paul manifested the correct attitude (2 Cor. 2:4) while the Corinthians manifested the wrong attitude – they were puffed up with pride (1 Cor. 5:2). Humility and love will generate in the church sorrow for the offender and repentance as a church for what has happened and which has brought dishonor on the Lord’s name. For in all matters of church discipline there is an element of failure on behalf of the church as a whole (cf. Achan’s sin, Josh. 7), failure to detect the change in the individual before sin occurred and failure to provide pastoral care.
Also, discipline is to be carried out in an atmosphere of privacy. Privacy should be maintained at two levels – the church level and the community level. At the church level, privacy should be maintained by trying to deal with the issue either between the sinning brother and the offended individual or between the sinning brother and the leaders of the church. At the community level, privacy should be maintained by not discussing the matter outside the church (if the matter is not already public in the community). Church discipline should be viewed as an internal matter in the strictest confidentiality.
Finally, all church discipline must be done in a spirit of willingness to forgive, readily and quickly (2 Cor. 2:7; cf. 2:5-11; 7:10-13). To not forgive and restore when repentance is evident is to leave the offender in the sphere of Satan and possibly cause irreparable damage (2 Cor. 2:11).
VII. Conclusions
Let me try to summarize briefly the principals and processes addressed in this article…
1. Wherever some form of intervention is required, whether privately between two individuals or publicly in the church as a whole, the process for dealing with it must follow the biblical patterns outlined in the Scriptures referenced in this article. These procedures ensure that the matters are dealt with in a fair, upright and God-honoring manner.
2. The attitude of those dealing with matters of church disciple must be that of humility, kindness, love, and honesty. The overriding attitude is that of “a spirit of gentleness…lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).
3. The immediate goal of discipline is the repentance of the offender through a sense of shame (2 Thess. 3:14) and “godly sorrow which leads to repentance” (2 Cor. 2:7; 7:10). The ultimate goal and spirit of discipline is the restoration of the offender, restoration to the fellowship of the church and with the Lord (Heb. 12:10; Matt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 12:11).
3. The purpose of discipline is…
a) To remove sin from the church, thus permitting the freedom of the Holy Spirit.
b) To clear the church from the accusations of the world (Rom. 2:24).
c) To restore the honor due to God’s holy name.
d) To restore the church’s testimony.
e) To protect the church from further sin (1 Cor. 5:6).
f) To remind the members of the church of their own susceptibility and propensity to sin and to warn them of the possible consequences if we do not keep short accounts with God (cf. 2 Cor. 7:11).
This topic is complex an hard to deal with in a short article like this, but I hope that the principles and processes mentioned in this article stimulate you to think carefully about this matter in the light of Scripture and for God’s glory.
