Those who speak of “Church discipline” are often primarily concerned with extreme cases thereof, such as the addressal of heresy or disruptive decent. At times in the Church’s history, the responsibility has been egregiously misconstrued to entail all manner of un-Biblical punishments within the supposedly Holy Communion, all the way up to torture and execution. As a result of these past corruptions, modern believers are often hesitant to consider the proper place and application of congregational accountability, often deferring to established tradition of the institutional structure as loosely consistent with Scripture. By God’s grace, the Church has continued to function as His testimony under these circumstances, and shall continue to do so according to His will. However, this should not deter us from reflecting upon the potential weaknesses of these structures, and how they might be made more adherent to what God has prescribed.
Arguably the most technically relevant passage of Scripture is found in Matthew 18:15-17, wherein is recorded the words of Christ: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refused to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refused to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
Here we have a straightforward set of principles for dealing with interpersonal concerns within the Body. Firstly, if one has a grievance, they are to approach the offender quietly before making any public accusation. Secondly, should there be no private reconciliation, then additional consultants should be sought to provide accountability to the accuser and to verify the issue. Thirdly, if the accused should remain firm in his presumed sin, then the matter is to be brought before the wider congregation for consideration. Finally, assuming true fault is found in the offender and he refuses to repent, then he has shown himself to be without humility, and cannot continue in fellowship. By dividing the disciplinary proceedings into an escalating process, accountability is maintained through the Church.
In my experience, the modern exercise of fellowship favors a structure centered around the position of “pastor” and an approved counsel of overseers, who are collectively the primary leadership of the congregation. A given member’s concerns are reported to the leadership, and the rectification thereof is left to them. Often the accused individual is approached privately by a representative of the assembly, and if reconciliation is not achieved, he may be brought before the counsel and eventually encouraged to extract himself. I have seen two extremes of this approach: In one, the issue is explained to the wider congregation in general terms after the counsel has already resolved it. In the other, such conflicts are dealt with entirely in secret and indefinitely hidden from the assembly, ostensibly to avoid scandal. In both cases, the “laity” is excluded entirely from the process, and the offender is often alienated from the congregation without general clarity as to the reasons.
My perspective may be obvious from the way in which I have related my observations; by centralizing the execution of Church discipline, a break in accountability develops between the exalted leadership and the rest of the congregation. The Church is supposed to resemble a family, working together as a unit for the edification of all. I perceive the intentions of the modern system are intended to protect individuals from false accusations and subsequently erroneous expulsion, yet I believe the result has been an emotional detachment between brethren as to their spiritual status; so few are now invested in the growth and accountability of their fellow believers, rather deferring the responsibility to those who, while admittedly worthy of double-honor (1 Timothy 5:17), are still too few to bear it in lieu of the fuller Body.
I do not perceive any changes forthcoming to this state of things, and acknowledge God’s sovereignty therein. Nonetheless, I will continue to hope, pray, and encourage for better consistency with the Biblical standards.
May the Church be upheld in Christ. TTT
Leave a Reply