not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins
Hebrews 10:25-26 (ESV)
Neglecting the meetings of the church is a sin and church discipline is to be used in the case of unrepentant sin. Church discipline not only restores wayward sheep, but also removes unbelievers from the church and protects the corporate witness of the local church. If a member is not attending, it is likely that the elders would not know if the member is living in sin and the member becomes a liability to the church’s corporate testimony. Failing to enact church discipline for non-attenders also allows members the option to quit attending to escape discipline for other sins.
When a member moves away without telling their church family, it should not be a surprise to them that their church family is concerned. Local church membership provides us with the blessing of accountability. It would be wrong for us to forsake a member of the church and end our relationship of accountability with them simply because they have left the church. In fact, this is the time accountability is most important.
This Biblical position does raise a couple ecclesiastical issues that should be part of the local church’s ministry process:
- The church’s position on discipline should be made known to the members before they enter into the covenantal relationship of church membership so that expectations are clear from the beginning. Consider adapting Restoring Those Who Fall for this purpose.
- An accountability process must be clear to ensure that a member becomes a part of another Biblical church before they are released from membership.
Restoring Those Who Fall is the position statement of Christ Fellowship of Kansas City on church discipline. This position statement is the best explanation of church discipline policy that I know, I recommend you read the entire position statement. Restoring Those Who Fall is also available in print from Christian Communications Worldwide.
Persistent and willful non-attendance is a sin requiring church discipline (Hebrews 10:24-26 [expanded to include v.26]). Except where persistent non-attendance is the result of unavoidable circumstances (e.g., extended illness or military service), it will be considered a public offense and addressed accordingly. Those who persist in their non-attendance without a legitimate excuse, even after exhortations and warnings from the church, will be expelled from membership.
No specific length of time has been established to designate non-attendance as “persistent.” Each situation will be treated as unique. Without delay, our elders will be diligent in conducting the most thorough and comprehensive investigation possible in determining the reason(s) for non-attendance. Everyone should assume, until conclusive proof to the contrary exists, that the reason(s) are legitimate. Only when it becomes certain that the offender is willfully and sinfully avoiding our church meetings will he or she be disciplined.
A member who leaves our church is accountable to us, and remains under the supervision of our elders, until he joins another true church or is expelled. If the member lives locally and believes it is God’s will for him to seek another church, the reasons must be discussed thoroughly with the elders. The member will remain under the counsel of the elders and the accountability of the church during this temporary process. If the member is unsuccessful in finding another church after a reasonable period of time, he must either return to regular attendance or be removed from our membership for non-attendance. The church will not retain non-attending members except due to illness, military service, or other extenuating circumstances.
If a member has moved out of town and we learn that he has not joined another true church within six months (unless a longer period of time is agreed upon with the elders), he will be removed from our membership. Certain exceptions apply, such as members who move to an area where there is no true church, or overseas military deployment. College and graduate students are expected to join a church near their school unless they are close enough to permit continued attendance with us.
If a member commits a disciplinable sin after having moved, the elders will do what is necessary to restore him and to help him find a local church where he can be cared for. If he will not repent, he will be removed immediately from our membership according to the normal process. Also, if a member leaves our church and joins a false church, cult, or non-Christian religion, he will be removed from our church.
Copyright © 2003 (Revised 2008) Christ Fellowship of Kansas City. Reprinted from Restoring Those Who Fall with permission.
Additional resources: 9 Marks. Class IX: Church Discipline and Cleaning the Membership Rolls (Part 2) – The Care List By Matt Schmucker
-Jason Smathers
Jason Smathers’ blog, twitter, and Facebook.
Dave Miller (75)
Debbie Kaufman (63)
Rick Patrick (41)
Chris Roberts (37)
Bob Hadley (33)
Frank (33)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
dr. james willingham (30)
cb scott (29)
Ok, please show me in the bible where it says how many church services a church is required to have. Furthermore, please show me where the bible specifically defines a church service. For instance, is my attendance required when the choir performs? Yes, we should meet together with the church to be encouraged, edified, and to encourage and edify our brothers and sisters in Christ. However, if you’re going to try to make a case that we are REQUIRED to be in the church every time the door is open you’re going to have a hard time doing so, methinks.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..D. A. Carson on 1 Timothy 2 "Authority" =-.
Hey Joe~
Thanks for chiming in. My point certainly is not that it is sinful to skip choir. I adopted Christ Fellowship’s term “persistent and willful non attendance” to try and make that clear.
This concerns a member that has been to a single meeting for a month simply because the weather was great 5 Sundays in a row and they wanted to go to the beach. That is just an example and I think every case should be looked at individually.
Blessings,
Jason
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Reformed Praise =-.
Ok, that makes a little bit more sense. I was remembering being chided for only coming on Sunday mornings rather than coming back for Sunday evenings which I thought was ridiculous. But yeah, just laying out because the weather is too pretty to waste being indoors–not good.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..D. A. Carson on 1 Timothy 2 "Authority" =-.
i tend to agree that churches should consider taking action, even discipline, towards members who refuse to attend. but, i don’t really see how the verse in the post says anything about that. perhaps discussions about discipline should, well, cite passages about discipline. i mention this for a reason: passages about church discipline tend to give specific behaviors that require discipline. titus 3, for instance, talks about rejecting people who cause divisions in the body (after multiple warnings). that’s a concrete example of something requiring discipline. i don’t know, i suppose the danger might be that we reject someone who doesn’t come to church (which i don’t think is in scripture anywhere) but do nothing about, say, a lay-person, deacon, or even a pastor who divides the body (which is definitely in scripture).
perhaps i’m being too literal with scripture. but, if we move beyond disciplining only behaviors which the bible tells us to discipline, where does it end? do we kick people out who don’t attend, cuss, smoke, lack forgiveness, don’t give 10% – only 8.5%, don’t bring food to potlucks. don’t get me wrong, i believe church attendance and fellowships is huge. but, if we move beyond heresy, divisiveness, sexual immorality, and things found explicitly in scripture . . . why attendance? where next? where will it end?
these are just some thoughts. i’m glad you brought this topic up, though, it’s the sort of stuff we should be taking more seriously and conversing about.
mf
.-= mike´s last blog ..3rd century synagogue found in turkey =-.
Mike,
Would you say that, based on Matthew 18 (a passage specifically about discipline) that ANY unrepentant offense, including willful unrepentant non-attendance, would be a disciplinable offense?
.-= Barry Wallace´s last blog ..It’s dangerous to play it safe =-.
Barry,
I think Matthew 18 is specific for personal offenses. However, I believe passages such as 1 Timothy 5:20, James 5:19-20, and Galatians 6:1-2 give us direction to discipline other public sins.
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins =-.
This is ridiculous. That passage in Hebrews is not commanding us to attend church meetings. It’s telling us not to forsake fellowship with other believers. You’ve taken a passage and turned it into law. I would love to be kicked out of your church because there is no love, no grace – only a presumption of evil towards an individual. I guess discipline is needed to keep those tithes coming in. Is lack of tithing a sin too? Concern yourself with the discipline of adulters, pedophiles, and gossipers who spread falsehoods – not some poor soul who decided he needed to sleep in.
Ann,
While I agree it’s not the best proof text his points still stand. He hasn’t turned it into law, he has merely pointed out a command we are called to obey. Those who “willfully disobey” should be addressed.
What is ‘ridiculous’ is your categorization of sin. Deal with gossipers, but not those who willfully sin by abandoning the gathering of the body? He isn’t talking about drilling some guy that slept in one Sunday. He is talking about the person that consistently, willfully chooses not to gather with other believers in a local church.
Ann,
First let me clarify that I am not speaking about someone that misses a single Sunday morning because they needed to sleep in. I would be talking about the person that needed to sleep in six Sundays in a row because they were out late dancing the last six Saturday nights – as an example. I do not presume evil in the absent member, but only suggest discipline in the cases where it is learned that the absence is sinful.
I wrote this with the bad assumption that everyone reading believes in Biblical church discipline. Some background on discipline would have been helpful. My point was that willful and persistent non-attendance is a sin. Most willful and persistent sins should be met with discipline, not just a short list of big sins.
Paul tells the Thessalonian Church to shun and warn a brother or sister that does not obey a the commands given in the letter (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15). In Titus 1:13 and 2:15 we are told to sharply rebuke a sinner. These are two forms of church discipline given to us that we can use in the case of a sin like willful and persistent non-attendance.
We do have some special instruction for some types or degrees of sin. Read section 5 of Restoring Those Who Fall covering insufferable wickedness. We are told (1 Corinthians 5:5, 13) to expel some people from the church rather than first going through a rebuking or other lesser form discipline.
Blessings,
Jason
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Sanctification is a process =-.
The person who willfully, consistently chooses to not gather with a local assembly of Believers(Church) is more than likely lost. They have no desire to worship with other Believers, and learn God’s Word from a Pastor, nor to fellowship with other Believers; because they dont know the Lord and have not been regenerated. When someone gets saved, then they WANT to go to Church.
David
David,
While I truly agree with 99% of that I would be careful with your last sentence. It takes some people a little while “post salvation” to want to go to church. This could be for many different reasons, usually has to do with something in their past. So while I agree with your point the desire to go to church isn’t ALWAYS immediately after a person is saved. If they are saved through the work of the Holy Spirit that desire will come, but it isn’t always immediate, thats all I’m saying.
I disagree.
There are many factors on why a believer would not want to attend church.
Of course, you would argue that they were never saved, I would argue that in some cases the church puts up barriers which prevent believers from attending.
It’s all a matter of where you want to put the blame and how you want to spin it.
The church will not be perfect before Jesus returns. It is God’s will for us to be a part of this imperfect church, despite any perceived barriers. We cannot use the imperfections or even sins of the church as an excuse to sin ourselves and forsake the gatherings.
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Prayer in Business =-.
Okay.
First, define “church” for me as to what it looks like.
Second, tell someone they have to go somewhere where it’s patently obvious that either they’re not welcome or they’re not wanted and see how long they stay through no fault of their own.
I’m not saying we have to be a perfect church, I’m saying that maybe the problem isn’t with the believer.
The church is the body of believers which assemble in local congregations.
In the United States, I have a very hard time believing that any believer can legitimately say there is no local congregation that is welcoming to them. Perhaps this means a drive in a rural area.
I agree with you in that local churches have problems and each church should examine themselves and improve where they can. However, our call to corporate worship is not contingent upon how we feel about the local church.
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Reformed Praise =-.
Man,
My church is going to have a field day with their rolls.
They have over four thousands individuals on their rolls and an average attendance of about five hundred on any particular Sunday. They have many names on their rolls that haven’t attended in over five years, or roughly the last time they conducted a performance of “Heaven’s Gates, Hell’s Flames.”
Then again, isn’t this consistent with an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptist churches?
However, my main question would be this: Isn’t this a symptom of something larger?
Jonathan,
This is the way it is with a lot of SBC churches… Which is why there has been ongoing discussion the last 5 years about regenerate church membership. It should tell you, me, and a lot of others that we need to clean up our membership rolls and start taking membership more seriously.
Yes.
In the 70s I tried to lead the church I was then pastoring to restore church discipline. Like the church I had pastored in Mo in the early 60s, both churches had ceased church discipline due to miscarriages back in the 20s & 30s. The wrong people had been disciplined; the ones who should have been disciplined got there firstest with the mostest as the saying goes. Interestingly enough, I found that the a great many Southern Baptist Churches ceased to disciple their members about the same time. This led me to suspect that the thing was a deliberate effort by some group (probably outside the denomination) to infiltrate and debilitate the evangelistic clout of Baptists. There is no proof, but later on I would learn of various groups whose aims were certainly inimical to the causes of the Gospel. In any case I persuaded my deacons to at least examine the Chaleston Baptist Association’s Manual of Church discipline. Not long afterward, they handed me the pamphlets (pub. by the SSB and edited by Dr. James Leo Garrett) and said they didn’t think they would try it. It was a great grief to me and one of the great defeats and disappointments of my life. Thankfully, they did let me preach the Gospel and did not trouble me over Sovereign Grace. I think discipline is coming back, but it will not be easy as every one has his or her own idea as to what constitutes an offense calling for discipline. I know of churches that in their effort to restore discipline simply took members names off the rolls, because they were not in attendance which is a violation of the standards of discipline (which must be handled open and above board). The rules requiring contact, two or more witnesses, citing to the church, seeking to remove any difficulties such as offenses given by other members – some of whom had given greater offenses than those being disciplined. What a grief! We really need a visitation from the Lord as in a true revival and even a Great Awakening so that the people want to restore true biblical practices. Great care and gentleness must be taken in ths effort and, indeed, if one is seious about avoiding doing harm in the process, it might require training a younger generation so that they would not think of doing otherwise. It helps to see the concern, but hurry up and go slow. Remember the soul you save might well be your own or one of your loved ones. Also you need to ask: Why did Jesus have Judas as one of the 12 Apostles and let him serve as treasurer? What about Peter’s denial, and the contention between Paul and Barnabas. If you need supernatural help to truly preach the Gospel, surely, you need the same to institute and develop church discipline in a way that honors Christ from the gitgo. And church discipline is not at all limited to excommunicating a recalcitrant member. I remember reading about a church in the 70s in another state and not a Southern Baptist putting a member under restraints of some kind (suspension from communion? I don’t remember) for a weight problem ??? If you think this is easy, a snap, your in deep trouble before you start. Also remember some people suffer from control problems; they feel more secure, if they have others under their thumbs. I have known preachers and church members like that. There is more, but I defer. God help us all as we seek for a visitation from on High and for a lifestyle for our selves and for our fellow Christians that honors the Lord Jesus Christ.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
Thank you for your thoughts. I see what you are saying about control issues. We really need to be filled with love for one and another to avoid such things. My own church has issues like this. People keep their sins secret because instead of loving one another people gossip and judge. Such an environment fosters these problems. Sharing your sins with your brothers and sisters will help keep you accountable and open you to loving rebuke.
We really need to foster an environment where we are willing to be rebuked and are not scared to be open with our church family.
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins =-.
oh, i was checking back in to see what others think about my comment above. any thoughts? i still think, when it comes to discipline (which i take to mean exclusion from the body), we need to reserve it for the few specific behaviors which are actually disciplined in NT letters, i.e. sexual immorality, divisiveness, and persistent false teaching.
.-= mike´s last blog ..3rd century synagogue found in turkey =-.
Mike,
Take a look at the comment I left addressed to Ann. I disagree with the assessment that only certain sins are disciplinable. For example 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 makes disobeying any part of that letter disciplinable and I think we can apply that more generally to all the new testament.
Blessings,
Jason
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Al Mohler on Images of Christ =-.
Mike and Jason,
I commented above, but in case you missed it, I think that according to Matthew 18 any unrepentant offense is potentially disciplinable.
.-= Barry Wallace´s last blog ..It’s dangerous to play it safe =-.
i would say matt. 18 is about sins which individuals commit against other individuals. that’s why it involves steps towards reconciliation and witnesses.
2 thessalonians 3:14-15 does say to obey the “word in this epistle,” and to “not keep company” with those who do not. so what are the “words” (instructions?) of the epistle?
chap 1 – keep in the faith (even in persecution)
chap 2 – don’t be deceived by the self-exalting one
chap 3 – don’t walk disorderly by refusing to earn your own wages
so sure, if someone A) quits being a christian b/c of persecution, or B) falls away from the faith b/c of the self-exalting one, or C) decides not to earn their own wages and to live off the church’s funds, then obviously they need to be shamed (3.14) in hopes of restoration.
but, those are VERY specific offenses. you can’t just say “all offenses need discipline” or we won’t have any church members. my question stands: does the Bible give specific steps of discipline for the specific sin of not coming to church? i’ve also been a pastor who wanted to “clean up the roll-call,” so to speak; but, now i see that the ones committing the sins which the Bible actually tells us to discipline seem to be the leadership more than anyone else (causing divisions, sexual immorality, teaching heresy).
so, until someone convinces me with specific scriptures (in context!), i think i respectfully disagree – non-attendance might not fall under NT church discipline.
.-= mike´s last blog ..3rd century synagogue found in turkey =-.
Mike,
No, there is not a scripture that I know of which details a procedure for church discipline in the case of non-attendance. However, I do not think we need such specific instruction. Passages such as 1 Timothy 5:20, James 5:19-20, and Galatians 6:1-2 give us direction to discipline other sins. Then if a member has so become known for their wickedness, they cannot be considered Christian and would not meet the requirements for membership (Titus 1:16; 1 John 1:5-6; 2:3-4; 3:9-10; 2 John 9-11).
I’ve articulated this in more depth on my blog this morning: Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins.
Blessings,
Jason
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins =-.
Appreciate your responses so much! I still think organized religion is a hoot. Church folk like to focus on people’s sin, rather than lifting up the Lord, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin. I left a big church back in 1999, moved, came back, and STILL get tithing envelopes from that church! LOL!! (yes, I called their office to inform them that I was going somewhere else since moving).
Matt, you’re right, it’s not the best proof text. Since when was lack of church attendance a sin anyway? It’s not in the commandments. Are we better than others just because we’re sitting there on the front row every Sunday? My, how arrogant. I say if a person leaves, be concerned that they are disheartened or going through some kind of personal doubt…don’t assume they are out dancing the night before:-) If they aren’t truly redeemed, they’re surely not going to appreciate your discipline. If they ARE part of the Body, the Lord will lead you to love them and care for their needs.
volfan007: You wrote:
“The person who willfully, consistently chooses to not gather with a local assembly of Believers(Church) is more than likely lost. They have no desire to worship with other Believers, and learn God’s Word from a Pastor, nor to fellowship with other Believers; because they don’t know the Lord and have not been regenerated. When someone gets saved, then they WANT to go to Church.”
Well, dear, I’m saved and I don’t feel any desire to go to your kind of church because of these kinds of things. Lord help the believers who just don’t understand! I’m not trying to condemn anyone or stir dissension, but the legalistic behavior and teachings that beat people up just don’t draw me anymore. I don’t play by the “rules”…the rules don’t guarantee anyone is in good standing spiritually, and I’m surprised you don’t know this yet. But before you guffaw and drop your jaw, I DO enjoy wonderful Christian fellowship, listen to good, pure, teachings from the bible, love the Lord, read my bible, AND YET I don’t go to a church building.
Dr. Willingham said: <>> AMEN to this!
<>
And this, Dr. Willingham, is more of what I’m sensing nowadays. May the Lord have mercy on us all. Churches and leadership that focus on rules instead of leading people to taste the grace and mercy of our Lord is doing a grave injustice, turning people away.
I appreciate all the gentlemen here, as well as Jason, and can understand your wanting to do the right, biblical thing. I just take issue with the way things are done…even the way the church focuses wrongly sometimes. I pushed my teenagers away from home when I insisted on rule-keeping, attendance, etc – just so we’d appear as the upstanding Christian family, doing all the right things. I might have caused them to be prodigals but still trust in a Sovereign God to bring them back. It is LOVE that draws people, not condemnation. Whenever I sense condemnation and judgment coming from God’s people, I flinch and pull back. Can you understand that? Please try to understand my heart. And pray for the Holy Spirit to lead you in dealing with people’s hearts.
God bless each of you,
ann
legalistic behavior and teachings
Translation–anything that’s in the Bible that I don’t like or agree with.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..When Should You Leave a Church? =-.
Ann,
Hebrews 10:25-26 is not a good proof text for enacting discipline, however, it is the perfect proof text to show that persistent and willful non-attendance is sinful. We need to turn elsewhere to see that we are required to enact church discipline for such sin.
God’s commands to us are not limited to the 10 commandments. However, if that is where you want to turn, I suspect a person willfully and persistently not attending the gatherings of the church are violating commandments 1, 2 and 4.
Entering into membership at a local church consists of promises between the members. This covenantal relationship should not be taken so lightly that a member can simply quit coming, switch churches or even move away without discussing it with the church. How would you feel if a member of your immediate family left town without telling you? In many cases abandoning your local church is a violation of the church covenant. To break a promise made to all the brothers and sisters in your local congregation is surely sinful.
This really brings up another point. Entering into church membership should not be done lightly or without being informed. A person should be taught what the church covenant says and what promises they are making by entering into membership.
Blessings,
Jason
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins =-.
PS. Jason, another thought hit me. Several churches now in our area – mega churches to be sure – don’t require membership to attend. Some folks have gone for decades, still not full-fledged members. They give, participate, and care for the Body. Do you think maybe the leadership should get out their whip and require full-fledged membership?
Come on, a little humor will do us all good.
We should lovingly encourage attenders to become members. However, I know of no church that requires membership to attend. I know our church has people that have come for years but never wanted to become members.
I would really question the motives someone does not want to be a church member. Are they unwilling to be accountable to their brothers and sisters?
The problem with long time church attenders that never become members is that they become associated with the church but are not accountable to the church. When the community assumes someone is a church member and they are living in sin, the corporate testimony of the church is hurt – even if they are not really a church member. I am not sure how we should handle such cases…
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Sanctification is a process =-.
In essence, they are members and are still accountable to the church because of their relationships within the church even though they may not be able to be counted on rollsheets as members for “numbers” sake.
You can still be accountable to the church even though you haven’t filled out the card. The card is something that has been put in place for politics and record keeping.
They’re there, they’re active, they’re not members. No problem. Odds are, they’ve living a better witness for the church than most full-fledged members.
Makes me want to rethink what exactly makes you a member of a church, the filled out card or the lived out life…
To me, part of the problem is that we have created a category of membership that doesn’t seem to be biblical – the “inactive member.” I have pastored the church where I serve for over ten years now. We have begun dealing with this issue over the last couple of years, and it’s sort of amazing what kind of response we get. A few people who have never been to any service over the course of my tenure have been very vocal about having their names removed from our rolls (keep in mind that we are not speaking of students, the infirmed, or even people who work on Sundays – these are people who have not come). While I agree that we do not want to become legalistic, it seems ridiculous to me that we would continue to ignore dealing in some form or fashion with people who have willfully decided that participating in a local fellowship is not worth their effort.
I live in Arizona and in an area where a majority of the population is retired. We have members that are in town only half the year and escape the heat the other half. An inactive status seems appropriate for these members, along with perhaps members in the military and similar situations.
I agree with you in general though. We should be proactive in determining the absence out of love. If a brother or sister goes missing, we should be concerned for them. If we find their reasons for leaving are sinful, they should be rebuked, warned, and persuaded to come back. We should not simply mark them inactive, where is the love in that?
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins =-.
The inactive category is extrabiblical or, better, unbiblical, but the problem is the membership that exercises the discipline. Sometimes they are no better than the people they discipline. There must be preparation of the membership for discipline. The rules to be followed for discipline must clear and compassionate. One church in the 1800s had a member with a drinking problem, it took ten yrs to deal with him, hoping he would come to his senses (he never did apparently). Usually a discipline case will cost the church not only the member being excommnicated, if that is what the discipline calls for, but relatives and friends who sympathize with the one being disciplined and thinking the ones doing the discipline are no better. Miscarriages of discipline are the problem, plus the fact that the modern or contemporary ministers and members have little or no understanding of how discipline works or what it is really for (the aim is restoraton). I have read the records of churche from the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, and it is never easy. Compassion, Compassion, Compassion, is required for the thing to truly work and even then there will be trouble. People wanting to be in control will do everything they can to ascend to that position where they can be the final arbiters of others conduct, etc. Having said all of that, I still believe that we must have discpline, that we must work to restore it. Organized Christianity is always a pain. One only has to look at the NT churches to know ths fact. If they had problems back then, should we expect anything else today? Hardly! But, for the glory of God and the good of souls, let us labor to do what the NT teaches. The nature of the local church is like the governing body of a Greek city state (see Acts 19 on the ekklesia). Jesus said the final court of authority is not the ministry; it is the church where ever member has a right to take part and to vote. While I think a plurality of elders is biblical, I know that our Lord put the congregation above the elders as the final court of appeal. Of course, our Lord is above the local church, but He expresses his will through the actions of the local body of saints (in most cases).
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
jason smathers,
thanks for the response. i do think, though, that once we go the route of saying all sins are worthy of discipline, the tough part will be the fact that our churches still have people. what i mean is that all members sin, are sinners, and are repeat sinners. that is why i’m inclined to discipline the specific sins pointed out in scripture, like heresy, divisiveness, sexual immorality, refusal of reconciliation, etc.
.-= mike´s last blog ..some good, free sites for biblical studies =-.
Just to be clear, my position includes that we should typically forgive minor sins without even mentioning them (Proverbs 10:12; 19:11; 1 Peter 4:8; Matthew 7:1-5).
Beyond minor sins, I believe we humbly, patiently, gently and lovingly discipline. Discipline taking many forms other than excommunication such as: private rebuke, public rebuke, pleading, warning, and shunning.
The Biblical evidence for rebuking a sinning brother is overwhelming. I suspect when you say discipline should be reserved for specific sins that you are not counting rebuke as a form of discipline?
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins =-.
jason,
and there you have it! you have differentiated between minor and major sins, a move that has long been a tough issue for the church. although i think some sins are clearly more heinous than others, at the end of the day our subjectivity will ensure that everyone will have a different list of major and minor sins. sure, we might all agree that adultery is high on the list, but i guarantee you the sin of not helping the poor is all over the map, minor to some folks, major to others, and unfortunately a non-issue among baptists.
and so i’m back to where i started above. who’s to say what sins are major and minor? who’s to decided which sins are so little that we need to ignore them, as you suggest, and which sins are so major that we must discipline? we need to reserve discipline for specific sins mentioned as worthy of discipline in the bible. people may say that the NT isn’t always specific when it talks about discipline, but i would tell them to look at what i did with 2 thessalonians above: we must do the hard work and figure out what sins are being spoken of in context, or we must humbly admit we don’t know what they are and back down.
as far as rebuking being different than discipline (which i take as a exclusion, and therefore shame), sure, i’ll concede that point. the word “discipline” has the connotation these days of excluding people from fellowship/membership, right? and that seems to be what paul suggests so often, that we are to put people out, let them feel shame, exclude them from the body for certain behaviors.
like i said, though, once we start labeling things as minor and major, put your mouthpiece in – everyone in your church is going to have a different list!
.-= mike´s last blog ..some good, free sites for biblical studies =-.
A great deal of this discussion would be better informed, if all participants would, in addition to the Bible, examine the writings of Baptists, past and present, on the issue of church discipline. It involves a great deal of work, but the dividends it might pay would be worth the effort. Take the Charleston Baptist Discipline which was put in pamphlet form by Broadman Press in the 60s or 70s. There you have a summary of the scriptures and Baptist understanding of them on the issues involved in church discipline. Without a strong basis in biblical and historical study, the discussion will ver likely be unprofitable.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
your last sentence is basically why i’m advocating scriptural precision in this matter. although denominational articulations of doctrines are crucial and helpful, ultimately they must be critiqued and parsed out as well.
i’m curious, though, as to why you’d suggest we need to be biblical since i think everyone on here would agree and is demonstrating a desire to do so. the problem revolves around determining exactly what the bible says about this matter. my suggestion for this conversation, again, is that we should only practice discipline (exclusion from fellowship) with sinful behaviors that are specifically mentioned as worthy of discipline in the bible, like divisiveness (tit. 3), sexual immorality (1 cor.), etc.
so, i agree we need the bible, and that it would behoove us to know what previous generations believed and articulated. i would probably say in disagreement (though respectfully) that we need a “strong basis” ONLY in the bible; that is, we need to be informed by historical study, but not co-based on it.
good words
.-= mike´s last blog ..my problem with review of biblical literature =-.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }