Bring back Church Discipline
by Nathan Brown
Some terrible things have been done in the name of church discipline. So perhaps it’s hardly surprisingly that in many churches the whole concept has largely been allowed to fall away. It is an easy answer to a complicated problem — but easiest is not always best.
The phenomenon probably also reflects a changing attitude to and relationship with the church. Haddon Robinson describes it like this: “Too often now when people join a church, they do so as consumers. If they like the product, they stay. If they do not, they leave. They can no more imagine a church disciplining them than they could a store that sells goods, disciplining them. It is not the place of the seller to discipline the consumer.”1
Church was never meant to be a spiritual supermarket or shopping mall, a retailer whose primary focus is to meet our needs and make us feel good about ourselves and our lives, whatever they may be. Instead it should be an organic community of those sharing their experiences and faith, committed to urging and assisting each other to greater godliness and goodness.
As such, we need to engage in discussion as to what church discipline might mean in our cultural and church circumstances, how church discipline can best be done and how this can again become a positive component of church life and membership. There is much work to be done but we must bring back church discipline.
In writing to the Corinthian church, Paul set out two reasons for such a process. After describing how the church should meet together to discuss the issue and, “cast this man out of the church,” Paul urges them firstly that this is primarily for the good of the man involved, “so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved when the Lord returns” (1 Corinthians 5:5).
This is hard: sometimes we do best by someone when we are not 'nice' to them. It must be done carefully and prayerfully but because of our love for our fellow believer and because of our belief in the eternal consequences of the choices we make, sometimes we must — as a corporate community of faith — call a member back to obedience.
This will work best when we have healthy relationships within our church community and when we have a proper understanding of what church discipline means. “Church discipline, even the final stage of excluding persistent sinners from church membership, is really just using our last resort in pleading with an erring brother or sister to forsake sin and return to the loving arms of the Lord who longs to forgive him or her. Church discipline is finally simply watching over one another in love.”2
The other reason Paul urged the Corinthian church to act in this way was the good of the larger community of faith. “Don’t you realise that if even one person is allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected?” he writes. “Remove this wicked person from among you so that you can stay pure” (1 Corinthians 5:6, 7). Paul is saying that it is important to maintain godly behaviour for the sake of other members, the faith community as a whole and perhaps even for the wider community who observes, learns from and judges the faithfulness or faithlessness of the church.
But that is not the end of the story. In his next letter, Paul follows up these instructions with another vital element of church discipline. Perhaps even referring to the same person, he urges the church to include redemption as part of their dealings with a former member: “Now it is time to forgive him and comfort him. Otherwise he may become so discouraged that he won’t be able to recover. Now show him that you still love him” (2 Corinthians 2:7, 8).
As people, we are still the same in so many ways as those in Paul’s day. And as a church we should continue this important spiritual practice: “If another Christian is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path” (Galatians 6:1).
Bible quotations are from the New Living Translation.
1 Quoted by Ron Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience.
2 Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, page 115.
Why church discipline at all?
Unlike the civil government, “discipline” is the church euphemism for punishment. When laws are broken, there are penalties: fines, or jail time or more, depending on the degree of guilt determined.
In church discipline, are there various degrees of punishment, and are they as carefully spelled out as in civil governments? There should be very distinct and specific language and not vague, confusing terms.
Also, the “times they are a-changin'” and what was a disfelloship offense is now largely ignored, i.e., adultery. When was the last time a church disfellowshipped a member for that offense? Or, even personal use of church funds? Or most irregular accounting methods allowing church administrators to “lose” millions of dollars on very shady investments? As someone has quipped: There are members’ offenses, but when administrators commit them they have “diplomatic immunity”!
This is too well known among members and to focus on members deflects investigation in high places.
Last, but not least, how does the church benefit by disfellowshipping and explain to the members? When civil laws are broken, the records are available to the public. When church laws are broken, members may question the reason a member has been disfellowshipped when they see no possible “sin” committed.
For those who have refused to be part of a church that is ruled by a “manual” which is their “Bible” of behavior, attendance is free and voluntary and membership has little or no meaning. We are free to live as we like and the church welcomes us and especially our offerings! What possible benefits does membership entail other than the “privilege” of excommunication? Certainly it has no bearing in one’s admission to heaven.
Nathan, I’d like to apologize for referring to you as “ignorant” quite some time ago on one of your blogs.
Glenn, I am happy to accept your apology but am curious to know more.
Nathan,
I would like to propose that you’ve overlooked both a critical definition and a major dimension of the topic: the role of the Holy Spirit in the church. Apostolic believers enjoyed the overpowering presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The church was run by the Holy Spirit. In contrast, today’s churches are filled with a cavernous absence of the Holy Spirit that is often evidenced by people attempting to exercise power in God’s name, yet without His power.
The missing definition is that “discipline” describes instruction helping a person become a willing follower. After all, Jesus’ closest followers were know as his “disciples.” Punishment is a modern definition of the word.
Put the two together and you get a very different view of church discipline. It begins with instruction by experienced followers of God that helps less spiritually mature people grow in their walk with God and become disciples themselves. Critical to that process is the fellowship they enjoy with both fellow believers and the Holy Spirit. This makes Paul’s instruction to cast out the erring believer so they could be saved. The severing of the fellowship they had enjoyed and separation from the Holy Spirit would create a huge emotional void that would motivate them toward repentance and restoration.
“Discipling” is a word and process that is too little used.
In Rick Warren’s model, new membes are “processed” through a gradual process from “learners” to “disciples,” which includes instruction in what it means to be a full participant in church life.
When a member is new in the church he must proceed to learn its doctrines, as well as expectations for his future work in the life of the church.
Within some churches, the word is often used as “discipline” which means punishment. We need to change our concept to the church’s duty to the new members first, before placing them in leadership positions.
Elaine, this is odd – I almost agree with you about something!! I also like what I hear of Rick’s type of model. Discipline should be part of a life long discipling process not a stand alone weapon.
In the UK where I live, to the best of my knowledge, most if not all of the predominantly indigenous white non-SDA churches that are exhibiting sustained substantial growth include an organsed, life long, mutual disciping and accountability process as essential for all members, from new convert to the most senior minister. (I cannot speak from personasl experience for predominantly non-white non-SDA churches.)
I include the largest such church in the north of England and the fasted growing church in Europe in this as I am familiar with both – both are in my own city and I periodically visit both. Interesting the membership is predominatly young adult not the usual over 60s dominated scenario. Also both are Anglican/Baptist in their affiliations.
My perception is that SDAs have always been wary of any formal discipling process and now equate it with Jim Jones and Waco. Also we perceive it as intruding on our western wish to be free to do things how we wish to do them rather than be accountable to a community. “Feel the width, never mind the quality” seems to be our moto.
John,
Jesus wanted every believer to become a disciple. Too often we stop at just teaching basic doctrines when learning to apply those teachings in daily life and to be in a continually growing relationship with the Holy Spirit are what we need to be pursuing.
Discipleship requires a close relationship with God. That does not happen until we embrace the Holy Spirit as the living presence of God inside us and accept that power as our supreme guide and authority. Focusing on Jesus but ignoring the Holy Spirit is attempting to follow the revelation of God who departed instead of the God who remains with us.
William
Wholeheartedly agreed.
But thinking that we can do without the continual active help and support of our fellow Christians is a triumph of our Western individualism over the community based support system – our Christian family – that Christ came to demonstrate. If we think that this support will exist throughout each local church without it being organised into the DNA of a local church we are cruelly deceiving ourselves.
John,
To borrow from your last statement: Wholeheartedly agreed. Unfortunately, we too often associate the DNA of services performed in the name of God with the spiritual experience God wants us to enjoy when we embrace the Holy Spirit above our traditions.
Dr. Pipim is also a big advocate of church discipline, including application to himself: http://www.drpipim.org/resignation/149-update-on-pipims-resignation.html . It is rather bizarre to read his account of asking for discipline together with his belief that his sin will lead to even greater impact in the future.
Does anyone here find it ironic that Seventh-day Adventists serve open communion while embracing the practice of disfellowshiping?
This is a tough issue. I am deeply troubled by the don’t-ask-don’t tell approach to church standards that seems quite prevalent, particularly within institutional centers of Adventism. But I am even more troubled by the notion that purges, or codification and enforcement of community belief and behavior codes, will usher in God’s Spirit, or make us more faithful witnesses to Christ’s presence in our lives.
What standards might emerge from a community that is passionate about following Christ, and how they would be maintained, I do not know. Who would have thought that the ritual of circumcision would have emerged from Abraham’s obedience to God’s voice? But I do know that that when we prioritize passion for ideology and doctrine over passion for a crucified, risen, and living Christ, our religion starts feeling harsh and judgmental.
I know you are not suggesting that, Nathan. And agree with your implicit lamentation that there seems to be little of substance holding together the increasingly diverse subcultures within Adventist except a common heritage. But I suspect that inconsistent observance of the standards is more a symptom than the disease. And I’m afraid that treating the symptom without understanding or acknowledging the disease will only prolong the problem.
As a matter of faith, I believe that when we are truly alive to a living, guiding Spirit in our micro-communities of faith, our common passion will render issues of discipline moot. As a general rule, it seems to me that those who feel a need for church discipline usually have come to conflate the movement with the institution.
I think you may have missed the dimension that for most Christians, including most SDAs, religion is between them and God. The church is merely a place where that sometimes happens, and the church leadership/organisation is necessary for that to happen in an organised way. There is no acknowledgement that the church leadership – or the church as a body- stands between them and God in such a way that the church can administer discipline. Members can, and many will, simply walk out if the church makes such an attempt. Removing one’s name from the church roll removes any right the church claims to have to enforce discipline. As church membership means little to many, such a move does not hold the fear it once did.
The perception is that the church needs it members far more than the members need the church, and that definitely changes the balance of power. What church today would dare to mark the roll in SS or church and demand an explanation for absence as our early church did? In a world where even many church members would agree that you can be a good Christian without belonging to a church or attending church services, what place does church discipline have? And what church would dare to use it?
The ultimate question: Why do I need the church? Is it for the friends,IOW
a regular social gathering? Or the weekly obligation expected? Is my soul being fed by the three hours spent there?
Today with people’s busy lives they ask questions of any activity: “What’s in it for me, and do I need it, and why?”
We ask those questions before major purchases, or new endeavors such as returning to school for more education: “what are the benefits for doing A or B?”
Church is no different. An activity that takes one day of the week devoted to church attendance (3+ hours including travel time) and balance that against an alternative such as reading a good book or watching the birds, might be much more relaxing and joyful.
Church at an earlier time in our history was THE place to be on weekends; even in the apostles’ time the synagogue was like the central meeting place for entertaining speakers, etc. Church must compete with so many activities that unless it is felt to be worthwhile, there is no reason to be there. It certainly isn’t necessary to knowing God better; it may be a deterrent as when we are alone we can meditate and think on spiritual things.