Chruch Discipline Redux

Last week I wrote a lengthy post on church discipline. It was intended as a sort of 'how to' guide. What I was not clear about is when it should be used and who should oversee and administer such spiritual guidance.

Let me say here at the beginning that the procedures outlined by Jesus in Matthew 18 and the events in Corinth described by Paul in I Corinthians 5 should be our last resort in pursuit of church discipline. When there is no where else to go with an unrepentant church member, only then do we go here. These passages MUST NOT be used a a basis for witch hunts. "Jane Christian is wearing her skirts way too short. It's time to give her a warning"; we need to avoid going 'judicial' in situations like this. There are other ways such things can be handled.

So what does merit a round of church discipline? Yes, a good question. As I said in a recent post, open, blatant, habitual public sin that is in clear violation of New Testament standards would be enough to set the wheels of church discipline into motion.

And who decides what violations to pursue? Another good question. According to Jesus, it should be the offended person, the witness to the sin or the one sinned against. If this fails to turn the sinner away from their self destructive path, then others must be involved up to and including the congregation. Indeed, the accused may want such a public venue to clear their name. In no place does Jesus or Paul mention the involvement of church leadership. This is a matter to be settled among those in dispute or those offended or those sinned against by a brother.

There are many variables here. Suppose the accuser has been less than forthcoming about how the offense occurred; or the accuser has an axe to grind with the accused. This is a possibility. What if they are in competition for a leadership position in the church and they are vying for the same job? You see what I am saying? The entire background of the situation surrounding the offense must be brought to light. This may be something that one or both of them might like to avoid.

Then there is the whole "your sin is worse than mine and you have to go" drama. Or "yes, I know Jim and Dorthy are involved in similar activity, but the circumstances are different and more understandable".

We just cannot go there. It's an abuse of the procedures laid down by the Lord.

Finally, the discipline procedures laid down by Jesus MUST NOT be used by church leadership to start a witch hunt against anyone that may disagree with their policies. "Joe Christian is taking issue with our plans. Lets research his personal life and background and internet presence and see if there is anything there we can use to destroy him and remove him from the church."

NO>>>NO>>>NO

Any church leadership that is willing to go there should receive fire from heaven.

These procedures are extreme measures intended for extreme situations. They are not to be used until every other option has been exhausted. Period.

If you want your church to be a place of transparency where people can open up and be themselves and get help with their sin issues, their life issues, their marriage issues and family issues, then a heavy handed or biased use of such church discipline is not advisable. It will shut down transparency faster than a mud pie on a picture window. If people believe they are going to be prosecuted instead of helped, they will not only shut down...they will move elsewhere.

These things need to be considered when using church discipline policy.

1. Gravity of the sin of the accused.
2. The character of the accused and of the accuser.
3. Hidden motivations of all parties involved.
4. Relevance. Has anyone in the church at anytime previous ever been concerned about the behavior of the accused individual? If not, why now? What motivation is their for concern at this time by anyone?
 5. Consistent, fair application of the church discipline policy for everyone and not just those with sins that are more irritating, offensive or odd than those presented by the status quo.

If the policy cannot be used without abuse or bias or absolute clarity concerning the facts, it must not be used at all.