A few weeks ago, someone raised a question in a comment regarding church discipline. I don’t remember exactly how it was phrased or who raised it. What I recall as the essence of the question was this: What is church discipline, specifically in a Baptist context?
Which is, of course, a great question. I would attempt to give you a blog-length answer, and I will start at the end and work backwards.
The first point to consider is this: What is a “Baptist context?” What is it about Baptists that makes this question different? Here are some key truths regarding Baptists that matter for considering church discipline:
- Baptists claim the Bible as their only authority. Not even denominational creeds like the Baptist Faith & Message are to be considered equal to the Bible. These only serve to explain what we believe the Bible says. Any concept of church discipline must be connected to the Bible.
- Baptists claim the Lord Jesus Christ as the sole head of the Church. There are no human authorities that sit as His equal, His advisor, or His single representative on earth. Any concept of church discipline must be connected to the authority of the Risen Christ.
- Baptists claim the individual believer is both capable and responsible before God. There is one mediator between God and mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore individual believers are capable of standing directly before God.
- Baptists claim the autonomy of the local church. Each local church, while we should be interconnected and mutually supporting, is responsible to the head of the church Himself. This allows each church the right and responsibility to make its own decisions regarding membership and participation.
- Baptists claim that churches operate under the Lordship of Christ through individual, Spirit-led, Bible-based, baptized believers that are the membership of the church. We see that expressed, typically, in some measure of direct democracy whereby the whole church prayerfully seeks God’s Word and will and agrees to do it.
- Baptists claim, with all our hearts, that salvation is by grace through faith because of the death and resurrection of Christ. Only and solely: the church cannot make or unmake the salvation of an individual. No form of church discipline may rightly claim to remove God’s grace from a believer or condemn them to Hell. That is simply a Biblical impossibility: salvation is God’s, not man’s.
- Baptists claim that grace is necessary for all for salvation, and so no person is without the need for Christ.
Now, go fill up your coffee mug and come back for the rest of this.
The idea of church discipline is primarily rooted in two passages of Scripture: Matthew 18:15-20 and 1 Corinthians 5. These are not exhaustive, but Acts 5 is not really instructive here and most other portions applied here hang the framework on Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians. There’s some books out there that address the whole issue, so grab one of those exhaustive treatments if you need it.
Let us start with what Jesus says in Matthew. This passage primarily addresses sin that is between two individuals. I will defer to the commentaries that claim “against you” is probably appropriate though missing in a few major manuscripts, but its absence from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is worth a nerd-look. The process outlined is fairly well-known and proceeds in stages. Each one provides the opportunity for repentance: individual, small group, and then the church as a whole. (Another nerd point: Jesus only uses the word “ecclesia” for church in two places: here and Matthew 16 at Peter’s Confession of Christ.)
Someone who remains unrepentant should then be treated “As a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17)
1 Corinthians 5 speaks to a specific situation in Corinth. There were people in the church living in open sexual immorality and the church, rather than even be ashamed by this, was apparently boasting about the situation. Paul declared that someone who is living in immorality that not even Corinth’s licentious populace enjoyed should be “expelled” from among the church.
One critical consideration for how this applies? What is the difference between a modern Baptist context and the Corinthian Church of the first century? There is a wide debate on how to answer that question: it likely hinges on whether or not the church at Corinth had public access meetings or not.
Between these two passages, we should find that church discipline is appropriate in the case of unrepentant sin. We should also find that the church cannot sit idly by while publicly known church members disgrace the Gospel by living in open immorality. We should certainly not celebrate that.
Now, the question comes down: How does this actually look?
Too often, it looks bad. My experience and observation shows that we either have too much church discipline or too little. Too much in churches that try and control every last action of their members. Too little in the churches that leave people in leadership in spite of definite sin in their lives. This is a complex issue that rejects the simplistic answers many of us want to bring to it.
I will offer a few points that I think are critical:
1. Church discipline must apply equally to all in the body of Christ. There are no loopholes for those at the top. This is re-illustrated in Paul’s confrontation of Peter in Galatians: even an Apostle made mistakes, and we are not exempt. Likewise, one does not purchase exemptions: those were called indulgences back around 1517 and we have held ever since that earthly wealth is not the key to the Kingdom.
2. Church discipline is about sin. Not disagreement or differences of opinion, but actual sin. The definition of sin must come, based on our Baptist beliefs above, from Scripture and not from a human construct. Further, it must be clear sin and unrepentant sin: this implies either a pattern of behavior or a single incident with distinct consequences on others. That you once skipped church is nonsense.
3. Church discipline is grace focused. If your only goal is get rid of a person or to punish an individual, that is not Biblical church discipline. If your goal is the strengthening of the church, then you are starting in the right direction.
4. Church discipline is local. It is not the place of a church in one place to dictate another church’s membership and composition. That does not exempt churches from a duty-to-warn, especially regarding leaders and victimizers, but if someone has simply faded from a church in one place and then joins another, that is the business of the new church. Not the old one.
5. Church discipline is not a weapon. It is a shield of last resort.
6. Church discipline should be clear up-front. The definition of sin should be clear in a church, and those who participate should know what it is. This should acknowledge clearly the reality that we all live in need of grace and that knee-jerk reactions cannot be part of church discipline.
7. Church discipline results in this: the removal of an individual from leadership within the church or from membership, but not attendance. Do we exclude tax collectors and Gentiles from our churches? Nonsense. If the goal is redemptive, then excluding someone from attending where grace is proclaimed is antithetical to the goal.
Ultimately, we need wrestle with this: church discipline is to protect the purity of the church’s witness of the Gospel. It is not about the ego of anyone, nor about the appearance of unity on every minor detail. This should be cautiously entered into–especially in cases not of gross immorality.
After all, Peter’s follow-up question was about personal forgiveness, the first stage in the Matthew process. And Jesus instructs him to forgive 490 times. Before we take a matter to the church, have we taken that step?
None of this should be understood to say that people cannot take appropriate steps for personal safety; likewise that a church should wait to protect the weak from predators.
We should just be very clear about what we really mean by that. Someone who isn’t as convinced of a Young Earth or a Late Exodus or whatever else is not a predator. Further, one who does not support the new building fund is not sinning. One who burns the building down is.
In all, there is no real consensus in Baptist life regarding church discipline. This is offered to provide some guidelines for a jumping off point. Where do we go next? More into grace than into law should be the answer–but how?
I simply have no capability of posting properly with my iPad. I set this to publish at 7 am, but it went right up when I hit schedule. I’m old.
Application may be the key to church discipline. In our home, our children have been trained in this process. Like a church, our home is family. We learn from Matthew 18:15 to confront the issue with the one who is doing wrong against the other. It does not go public at this point either. In this process we also learn to be both sensitive to the feelings of others and our responsibility to God. We instruct the kids that if someone has to address their behavior that they need to realize that the behavior may be inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with questions or dialog as long as the conclusion of the discussion ends in a better understanding or repentance and forgiveness. If one repents, we instruct the other to openly state that they are forgiven. Forgiveness is a big deal with me. If it cannot be settled that way, one of the parents are called in to hear the matter and make the decision. If there is no repentance, then the discipline to match the offence takes place. It usually doesn’t get to the discipline level. If this was practiced within the homes of the church members we may have a better understanding of church discipline now and in the future generations.
If we instruct our people about the process of church discipline, we should also instruct our people that one day they may be the one who has offended someone. How we respond to someone who has been offended by our actions is critical, as well. One thing that is difficult for some people is the initial confrontation. It should always be in person with the right attitude. If we do confront the person, we must realize that we may have to take this all the way to the discipline phase. If people do not have the character to confront it will be a difficult task all around. If people do not approach the person for the purpose of resolving the issue through forgiveness it will be a difficult and messy task. Proper instruction and application will keep the church a place of freedom and peace.
Bruce, you said: “If we instruct our people about the process of church discipline, we should also instruct our people that one day they may be the one who has offended someone.”
What is included under “offended someone”?
William,
If you offend someone and they address it to you there will be options to consider. If you offended them with the truth you will be able to instruct them with the truth so they better understand that they were thinking worng. If you offend them by saying something that hurts them and it isn’t biblical truth, then it is your responsibility to repent or apologize. Their response is to say, “I forgive you.” There are two sides to this.
So, you don’t specify but leave it as an open, undefined concept? Looks rather unworkable to me, given the wide variation in how people can be offended by other than Biblical truth.
William,
Wouldn’t specifying create a multi-volume book that we would have to buy? What I am saying is if a person is offended by what I say I may need to consider their feelings until I find out if they were simply hit by the truth or I stated something that hurt them. We also need to be sensitive to those we offend unknowingly.
Doug, you observed that too often we either have too much church discipline or too little. I have observed the same thing. Sometimes the “too much discipline” seems to arise from discipline for the sake of discipline rather than for the fruit discipline could or should produce. Also it seems there are the pendulum swings. Churches with too much discipline may “correct” it by swinging to the opposite extreme, too little discipline — or vice versa. I’d say most churches with which I’m familiar have too little discipline, i.e. — none.
We definitely have too little discipline at our church (none), although it’s not for a lack of confronting sin. It’s like we do the first step of Matthew 18 over and over again. I’m just not sure how to take it to the next level with some sin and not other sin. For example, we have a few church members who are living with their boyfriends. They only come occasionally since graduating from high school, but they’re still members. But then there’s another couple who are severely overweight because of gluttony, which they admit to. But repentance involves turning from sin, not just admitting to it. Other church members are simply lazy, These are all sins. I confront all of them when appropriate. But where do we draw the line as far as discipline goes?
Chris,
Open fornication is quickly remedied where obesity and laziness takes some effort on the churches part. This would not fall under the Matthew 18 approach. Matthew 18 is when a brother sins directly against me personally. The sins you have mentioned fall under 1 Corinthians 5.
To the fornicators, I would talk to their parents if they are members of the church. They would need to address the matter and resolve it before the church got involved. However, if the parents do not go to the church, I would take an elder or deacon with me and address it in love and compassion. I would let them know how that is sin and sin must be addressed or the church will suffer spiritually.
To the obese and lazy, I would have to find skilled people to assist them to overcome their lack of self-control. It would be a long battle. Many other people may join a class that is directed at self-control.
Bruce, where is the line for “obese” and where does Scripture indicate being obese is an offense worthy of discipline?
William,
Morbid obesity would be a person who is so overweight that they can die.
“Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20
Any sin we commit in our body that affects the body, whether fornication or overeating, is a sin. We must present ourselves as examples to good health with the wonderful gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing we do should detract from the message we present. I quit smoking for that reason. If you think otherwise, so be it.
Bruce and Chris,
I’m guessing that Charles Spurgeon would be disciplined in your Churches? He was fat.
David
So, you are adjusting this from “obese” to “morbid obesity” and then to “over eating”? Would you accept BMI as the standard measure of such and would that be a bright line? Are there other issues that would be subject to discipline that might not be so obvious?
So, not being an example of “good health” is an offense for which you might begin discipline? Do you have a list or know it when you see it? Are members informed about such ahead of time or do they just wait until a case is started to find out they have offended someone?
How about someone who falls within normal weight ranges but has a sedentary lifestyle? How about someone who is normal weight but has unhealthy eating habits?
The Scripture you use doesn’t refer to the terms you use nor the medical definitions behind them.
I’m asking questions because you started with a completely unworkable concept of church discipline and have made it worse with explanation.
You may not mean it so, but this looks a lot like excessive control.
All of these issues being brought up are exactly why we’ve never gone on to step 2 of church discipline. Honestly, I just don’t know where to draw lines in terms of when, who, and for what. It doesn’t help that we have over 100 people who are “members” whom I can’t even track down.
volfan007,
If Charles Spurgeon was morbidly obese, someone in his church should have addressed it. Jerry Falwell was way overweight and someone should have addressed the matter. Both are considered great men, but we simply never look at the weight problem for some reason. We just let it go.
I would bet that we could think of many great preachers, who were overweight…. Spurgeon and Falwell were 2 of them. They were fat. There was nothing wrong with them being fat.
David
Chris Huff,
There should be deacons or elders that could assist you in this. Church discipline can be easier if you cut back to people living in known sin or who are either unrepentant or ignorant of the sin. Soon, you will have to delegate some of your responsibilities.
David,
It gets even worse! Spurgeon also enjoyed a cigar from time to time as well as a nice glass of wine. Was ever a man more worthy of church discipline?
volfan007,
When a pastor does not have self-control we should be concerned and address it. That would mean that we needed to look at our own lives to see if we do not have self-control in other areas of our lives. The partial purpose of church discipline is that we do a self check before removing the splinter out of the eye of another brother or sister.
I never heard of Spurgeon drinking wine, but he did smoke a cigar …which is not sinful either….not wise, but not sinful….it’s not mentioned in the Bible….neither is chewing or dipping…..
David
William,
If a person is obese and we know obesity will kill the body, do we say something or allow them to continue to eat their lives away?
If a person does something that kills the body and no one says anything who is responsible? I question the church discipline on this one, and smoking, but we must say something. We must help them achieve some kind of normal healthy living. We do not help them by saying nothing. That would be sad.
Chris / volfan077,
I knew of Spurgeon. In his day it would not be a problem like today. Spurgeon did die at 58. Wasted years! If only someone told him.
Bruce, you put obesity in the discussion of church discipline, not wise counsel or a friend concerned for a friend. You classify it as a sin of lacking self control and go from there. I’d wager that no one here cannot be found to be vulnerable on some aspect of self control.
You illustrate why church discipline almost always fails and is destructive to the church. Those who administer it have pet sins that get the attention while others are ignored. Might be a splinter/beam situation at work, though I do not impute that to you.
William,
Maybe you are right. The bible does say, “For each one shall bear his own load.” Galatians 6:5
I do not recall saying that church discipline almost always fails. I do think we must be accountable, first, of ourselves, then, others. I have never addressed someone who is overweight because I have never been in a church with someone I thought to be morbidly obese that was a man.
Church discipline should be exercised for a member, who is living in open, unrepentant SIN(a sin that’s clearly spelled out in the Bible, as sin). It shouldnt be for something that’s not clearly a sin….it shouldnt be done just because some Believer slipped up, and failed God, one time. It should be done for those members, who are living in open sin.
So, we shouldnt be on a witch hunt. And, we shouldn’t discipline people just because they’re doing something that goes against our personal preferences. Example: if you’re a jogger, then you shouldn’t discipline other members, who don’t jog. No matter how important you might think that jogging is, or that everyone should be doing it, still, no where does the Bible tell us to trot down the road, and if we don’t, then we’re sinning. That would fall under the personal preference heading.
I think a long time ago, Churches did go overboard with Church discipline. They turned it into a scolding, give someone a whipping for missing Church a couple of Sundays, kind of thing. Instead of it being a loving, concerned, help that Brother get back close to God thing; it turned into a witch hunt for a lot of Churches. And, we can read from some Churches history that they indeed kicked people out of Church for a number of things that we’d think was silly, today.
So, Church discipline should be done in love….and it should be reserved for only people, who are living in known, open, unrepentant sin.
David
Volfan…
I could not agree more with your post above #14 right now….especially these two statements….actually they are your first and your last thoughts.
“Church discipline should be exercised for a member, who is living in open, unrepentant SIN(a sin that’s clearly spelled out in the Bible, as sin). It shouldn’t be for something that’s not clearly a sin…it shouldn’t be done just because some Believer slipped up, and failed God, one time. It should be done for those members, who are living in open sin”
“So, Church discipline should be done in love….and it should be reserved for only people, who are living in known, open, unrepentant sin.”
To these ends…our bylaws actually state that in relation to church discipline. Done in love. Goal is restoration of the brother/sister. Exclusion is the last resort after all other sincere and loving admonishment and attempts at restoration have taken place.
We also took time to delineate the difference between slip ups…singular and repentant moments of anger…etc…and unrepentant sin that requires the measures being taken.
Also I liked where you pointed out earlier (I think it was you, but even if not I am sure you concur with the sentiments. 😉 ) that sometimes (maybe more than we would like to admit) “church discipline” is used to keep people in line so to speak and not really about restoring a fallen or falling brother or sister to right fellowship in grace and love…but rather to punish those who “don’t walk the line”. I am sad to say I have seen the latter way too often.
Tar Heel, it’s always a good day when we can agree!
David
David,
Everything we do should be done in love. Today, we know that morbid obesity kills. Someone needs to say something if I am doing something that will kill me. The person is sinning against their own body if they do not have a medical problem that we need to pray for. Smoking, dipping, obesity and not taking diabetes meds can kill a person. We need to step in and show loving concern.
At what weight is someone morbidly obese? Where in the Bible are we told what weight that is? Can you show me?
David
David,
The medical field has provided information from research that morbid obesity is deadly. Would you go to a brother and assist them in trying to lose weight if you knew they would die and leave a wife and children behind? Or, just let him die and have the church take care of his family? I don’t see either happening today.
Bruce,
If you’re talking to me as someone, who is just trying to share wisdom with me, out of concern; then, go ahead. If you’re trying to help me, like my Mom and Dad, and my wife and children do, then amen! Thank you.
But, this discussion was about Church discipline….and, if someone is saying that Church discipline should be done on people for being overweight….well, then that’s another matter…
David
David,
I do not think any of my comments stated that obesity was a disciplining sin. Someone else called it a sin and I mentioned that they should get involved in the person’s life to assist them in losing the weight.
Scenarios that cause me consternation as I consider the outworking of church discipline:
1. The young person who is baptized as a child and who strays as a thirteen or fourteen year old boy or girl. Their parents don’t attend at all. Who is going to show up at that teenager’s house demanding repentance. Who’s going to bring his name up to be voted out of church. This is a huge portion of the “missing” church members. It is easier to just ignore than pursue.
2. The straying woman who attends church without her husband or who is perhaps single. It is something of a difficult thing for the pastor to show up with a deacon in another man’s home to confront his wife over whatever sin she has committed. It is more likely to lead to a fist fight in the yard than a resolution.
3. Pursuing the person who faded out of attendance years ago but whose name is still on the roll but who has become known for a grievous sin. The church has long since stopped contacting the individual. The church has not offered ministry in years but now will undertake to contact the individual and ask for repentance or they will be removed.
There are a multitude of messy scenarios. I’m thinking that there is a time to apply what John wrote saying, “They went out from us because they were not of us” and simply drop them from the roll after an effort to reconnect them as they attendance and lifestyle demonstrates that they truly are not part of the church.
Doug, I want to add to what I posted above. I was taught that there are 3 classes of Church Discipline:
1. Private offenses. Matthew 18
2. Public offenses. 1 Corinthians 5
3. Heretical or schismatic offenses. Titus 3:10
I personally have found this classification helpful in understanding how to approach different issues.
Robert,
I like what you said. Good information.
Doug, this is a good post that covers a lot of ground that is seldom covered when this subject comes up.
I fear that church discipline as I see it in the SBC these days is mostly a control tool for church leadership.
My thinking is that Galatians is the better route: “Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently.”
William, this is a good point. The ultimate goal of discipline ought not be punishment but restoration.
Doug,
These is a great topic and some great initial thoughts. Here are a few questions and comments I will add to the discussion:
1. The book I am most familiar with on this topic is Jay Adams’ Handbook of Church Discipline. Though he is not a Baptist, I think he approaches the topic from a mostly (if not totally) biblical perspective. What other books on this topic do you (or anyone else) recommend? Anyone have any opinions on Adams and his approach to church discipline?
2. I think an important (and often neglected) aspect of church discipline is that of personal relationship. In my opinion, those directly responsible for holding others accountable in the church must have a close enough personal relationship with them to know something of their lifestyle, personal struggles, issues they are dealing with, etc. This, ideally, should be before a particular discipline matter arises, not just afterward.
3. An implication for this is that small group leaders must be actively involved in church discipline in a church that is too large for the pastoral staff to be on a first-name basis with all of the members. There must be some sort of a “Jethro” system in place. And no one should fall between the cracks. Everyone should know who is directly responsible for “pastoring” them, even if it is not the senior pastor of the congregation.
4. That is not to say that it is exclusively the job of these designated individuals to carry out church discipline. All the members must participate. But the bottom-line accountability for seeing to it that discipline is biblically carried out should be in the hands of duly designated individuals, and the rest of the members should be aware of who these people are.
5. Though I agree that “each church [has] the right and responsibility to make its own decisions regarding membership and participation,” I think that we in general need to be more pro-active about taking into consideration other congregations in the way we go about church discipline. This means, among other things, when people come from other churches, doing a good job of investigating the circumstances of their move, and communicating with the leadership of the churches from which they come (even if they are not fellow Baptist churches). It is hard to do anything about other churches that do not reciprocate, but at least we can set an example to the others in this area. Otherwise, with the church-hopping mindset that is so ubiquitous among us, church discipline becomes practically meaningless.
6. A tricky issue (which has been touched on in other comment streams here at SBC Voices recently) has to do with church discipline and lack of attendance and/or participation in church activities.
Though it is tongue-in-cheek, here is a spoof article that points out some of the knotty issues that must be thought through related to this:
http://www.larknews.com/archives/574
David,
Point 4 is critical. When Nathan pointed out to David, “Thou art the man.” I have to believe there was a tear in his eye. Preachers proclaim that Nathan came across with vengeance and pointed his finger at David. I happen to believe he came across with an attitude of love and compassion. Nathan knew what it meant to David that he was disgraced as a king and, yet, chosen of God. Our approach to discipline is to address the problem and restore the sinner. To me, discipline is full of compassion and love.
Good additions.
Too many times it seems that churches that wish “re-add Church Discipline” just jump in and practice the church version of the sign in the manager’s office at a place I worked. He was responsible for the morale/retention issues but the sign said “Sometimes the solution to morale problems is to fire all the unhappy people.”
The solution to church issues is not to give the left boot to anyone with a contrary idea, that much is certain.
I’ve been mulling over the implications of all this for the past several days. I came across the following post on “The Lost Art of Pastoral Visitation,” and thought it might have something important to contribute with regard to this discussion. It seems to me that a good starting place for re-instating healthy church discipline in a congregation is a renewal of the practice of pastoral visitation. For churches above a certain size, this responsibility would need to be shared and delegated appropriately, but all church members should expect regular visits, either at home, or out for coffee, lunch, etc. with someone at church who has the responsibility of keeping them spiritually accountable.
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/pastoral-visitation-the-godgiven-responsibility-to-shepherd.php
David, this is a relevant point. Further, there needs to be more connection between the members themselves. Too many churches are a collection of independent people who have no points of contact in each other’s lives except for when they happen to show up at the same location one or twice a week.
I remember getting my deacons at my third church copies of the Charleston Church Discipline published by the SSB or Broadman Press (I forget which) and annotated by James Leo Garrett. They looked at them and after a month or so handed them back to me, saying, “Preacher, we don’t believe we can do this.” or some thing to that effect. From then on I was just treading water. It was a great grief to me and might have, had we instituted it, saved one of the children of one of the deacons from a life that is a grief to any parent. The sad part is that my third church was like my first. They had had a case of a miscarriage of church discipline, and this led to its discontinuance. The cases happened about the same time…and I would hear rumors of like cases across the years. Thus, I came to think they were planned by someone else, especially as I came across realities of outside influences at work. The change in theology of Southern Baptists across two centuries has been something that, I think, was planned outside the convention which was then infiltrated and the plan was executed. The only part where the infiltrators failed was getting us off of Scipture. They got caught between the upper and the nether millstones, so to speak, and it led to their defeat on that issue. But they are still at work, seeking to run the two sides now in evidence off into the extremes, thus, destroying our effectiveness. Note the focus on the Committee on Calvinism and the issue of infant damnation/salvation. Most Calvinists believe that the infants will be saved. Certainly, Spurgeon and John Gill believed it. Since I don’t read John Calvin that much, I can’t really speak with reference to him. Augustine apparently thought hell was paved with infants, but that was due to their not having been baptized. Most, I repeat, believe in infant salvation, any infant dying in infancy is regenerated and taken to Heaven where he or she is a full grown and mature person.
Some folks want to keep on rubbing a wound, a sure way to inflame it and bring on a major infection and disaster. That metaphor refers to the theological issues. Sovereign Grace ministers and believers in the period of 1787-1800 resolved the issue by allowing that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man would be no bar to communion. Now some on the other side of that view want to shove out the Calvinists, while, I suppose, there are some Calvinists who had forgotten the source of the decision in the past want to do the same to their opposite numbers. But we have greater responsibilities and even one whose theology is lacking in many respects can still point others to Christ…as did the mentally challenged fellow that Dr. Adrian Rogers told about in one his sermons. The man put a cross in the road, stopped the cars, pointed to the cross and to his heart, and one or some (my memory fails here) were converted.
When some of you, youngsters, get over the age of 45, and your metabollism starts letting you down, then you may change your minds on the “being chubby is sinful” attitude. Back when I was 20, and fit as a fiddle, I had some not so graceful things to say about people, who were overweight….but, metabolism changes can cause things to happen….lol.
Also, the food we eat in the South….raised on it….is all fattening, and we like it.
BTW, there’s nothing sinful about eating a double cheeseburger, or a giant, Snickers, candy bar. There’s nothing sinful about eating a 12 oz Ribeye, and a baked potato. There’s nothing sinful about eating a piece of cake for dessert, after a meal of pork chops, mashed taters, and purple hull peas. And, when you eat like this…till you’re full…not gorging yourself…not eating past being full….then, you’ll gain some weight…but, it was not gluttony. It was eating good food til you were full, and being over 50 yrs old.
But, you, youngsters, will experience it, one day….you’re day is coming.
David
Funny how one of the guys who can rail for hours about the negative and deadly effects of alcohol – even when consumed in moderation- gets really sensitive and defensive when someone approaches his eating habits. Sugar, caffeine, and saturated fat kill more people in America every day than alcohol through diabetes, heart attack, and stroke.
I love Southern cooking, fried food, sweets, and red meat, but I became convicted last year that they were gods for me and that I loved them more than I loved the family, the church, and the life God had given me. Weight loss and changes in diet were as much a spiritual thing for me as a physical thing. I pray you would think about that the next time you pick up your fork and also before you start to once again type condemning and falsely judgmental statements against those who have an occasional drink of alcohol.
Careful. Unless you are confessing your own weight problem, you should acknowledge that very heavy pastors rarely feel conviction of sin regarding their weight. While they do feel conviction of sin regarding your alcohol consumption. It’s important that you understand that nuance.
There’s nothing wrong or sinful with eating pork chops, chocolate cake, or fried taters. There’s nothing mentioned in the Bible about it being sinful to drink a large, Cherry Coke from Sonic.
There is something mentioned about alcohol.
David
Also, Greg, there’s no weight scale in the Bible that I can find. Can you show me the verse? They do have a weight/height scale down at the insurance company. They say that I should be 175 lbs, because I’m 6’1″ tall….I used to be closer to 6’2″…but alas, I’m starting to shrink at 51 years old. So, the insurance company has a desired weight….but, I can’t find that in the Bible. Is that in 2 Timothy, or Jude, or ?
David
Greg,
The Holy Spirit convicts men of sin. Being overweight is not a sin.
Also, I agree with CB, and Charles Spurgeon in his latter days…that using alcohol as a recreational drink is unwise. AND, it’s a sin to be high, or drunk on alcohol.
David
You know and I know that the only verses on alcohol prohibit drunkenness and that’s pretty much the continuing condition of it, not the one time condition. The good thing about this site is that we’ve been there and done that and don’t need to repeat it. I acknowledged that CB’s presentation at least argued from the point of view of wisdom rather than claiming that Scripture required a prohibition of imbibing alcohol.
I don’t think there is a need for a height and weight chart. There is a need for overweight pastors to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is convicting them on losing weight and then to get after it. And an acknowledgement that sin is sin is sin is sin.
Funny thing, no one has mentioned fasting. Now that is not a sin.
You guys understand, tell me that you do, that much of this discussion where this or that “kills” people that we’re not actually talking about killing.
Cyanide kills people. Beheading kills people. Saturated fat, high cholesterol, smoking, obesity and other factors increase risk and a population of people who practice such have a statistically shorter life span on average. But you cannot target deacon Bob who smokes and say that he is shortening his life nor the chicken loving, overweight preacher and say that he, not his population group, is shortening his life. They may. They may not.
In the context of church discipline, to group these types with pedophiles, adulterers, habitual drunkards is absurd and cheapens the whole notion of discipline.
This is not to say that the church, that Christian friends should not care about such things. They should. But it is highly foolish to make a case of church discipline out of it.
I will eat my cheeseburgers and drink my cherry cokes for the glory of God!
David
I recommend the “Jesus loves you double cheeseburger”, in moderation of course.
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2012/01/jesus-loves-you-double-cheesburger.html
That sounds great, William. I wish I could eat there! lol.
My wife is cooking beef roast and cornbread at the moment…I’m about to go into the kitchen to eat it for the glory of God.
David
Wow…we had fresh sweet corn and tomatoes right out of the garden as well as roast and hot cornbread cooked in a black cast iron skillet….yuuuuuuum yum! My taste buds starting singing the Hallelujah Chorus!
Amen!
And occasionally you should enjoy a single cold beer with it.
😉
Couldn’t resist. It might cause the world to stop spinning if we ended the day in total agreement VolFan. Lol.
Lol….I wish I could buy you a Cherry Coke at Sonic, sometime….maybe it’ll happen?
David
I like cherry come too. Maybe in Baltimore next June?
*Coke. Lol.
Hopefully so.
David
Well, great discussion. And for what it’s worth here below is the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO) on discipline. This is a short part of a much longer section dealing with the subject.
Proper disciplinary principles are set forth in the Scriptures and must
be followed. They are:
a. Instruction in the Word;
b. Individual’s responsibility to admonish one another (Matthew
18:15, Galatians 6:1);
c. If the admonition is rejected, then the calling of one or more
witnesses (Matthew 18:16);
d. If rejection persists, then the Church must act through her court
unto admonition, suspension, excommunication and deposition
(See BCO 29 and 30 for further explanation).
Steps (a) through (d) must be followed in proper order for the
exercise of discipline.
Basically as you can see, there is the regular proclamation of the word where correction often happens as the Spirit works with the preached word and convicts sinners. No further church action needed. In fact, most often no one else even knows.
Second is offenses to and between one another. Again seems obvious. And unless the offense is scandalous, no need to bring anyone else in.
Last, is if #1 is scandalous and becomes known or if #2 can’t be worked out (or is scandalous such as a man offending another man by commiting sexual sin with the man’s wife), then the leaders need to be brought in.
They also say, “Personal offenses are violations of the divine law, considered in the special relation of wrongs or injuries to particular individuals. General offenses are heresies or immoralities having no such relation, or considered apart from it.
Private offenses are those which are known only to a few persons.
Public offenses are those which are notorious.”
Just an FYI.
You folks are a little dippy on this matter of weight and personal practices. What the Bible calls for is flagrant violations of the Commandments. Spurgeon’s church, likely, used wine as that was the practice on both sides of the Atlantic in the 19th century and even down into the 20th century as older members of the churches, very likely, can recall who was appointed to secure the wine for communion. And then the issue of weight. I know of a church where they were after a member over his weight, but I knew his father. There are people who inherit a physical nature given to chunkiness, and to some degree of obesity. Discipline can be enforced to the point of no freedom, but that is a dictatorship; it does not allow for a person to make up his or her mind on some practices. Running discipline into the ground is a good way to kill the practice. Everyone has his or her ideas on the issue, but the only one that counts is the word of God. Drunkenness is clearly indicated as a cause for church discipline, but I know of one church in the 1800s that took 10 years before they finally excommunicated a member for drunkenness. A miscarriage will do more to undo a program of discipline than anything imaginable. If there is no freedom of practice, one questions whether there is any Spirit of Christ.
Some judgments were made concerning Mr. Spurgeon, but no notice was taken of the years he actually pastored the largest Baptist Church in the world and influence people in many nations, including this one. The man suffered from severe traumas. I have no doubt that he had several experiences that qualified him as a sufferer of PTSD, and, if you don’t believe that is a real problem, I suggest you deal with a person from the battlefield. It took me 40 years to figure out that my Maternal Great Great Grandfather suffered from PTSD. After all, he did some strange things. All of that I learned from my grandmother who raised me, and then I read about the battles he was in during the Civil War. Try Chattanooga, Lookout Mountain, Franklin, and Nashville. The last two along qualify as real PTSD producers. At Franklin they did just charge once like Pickett at Gettysburg; they charged five times against a union line with breastworks, all because Hood did not believe the Army of Tennessee would fight.
You have people that do some things, because they suffer from other problems, problems that you need to know before you try church discipline. Church discipline is a go slow matter, making sure you have given the subject very opportunity in the book for a change. It is not meant for a rip snortin’, do it now activity, except, perhaps, in very rare cases.
Would the church we attend have a sense that there would be discipline if a person sinned openly and/or continually? If not, the message of living holy and sanctified lives may not be at the forefront of the people. Maybe our sermons should contain the threat of discipline and that this church believes in everyone living a holy life. That is not legalism.
Some of you have added some great thoughts–my goal was to spur that type of discussion.
I’ll check on some of those book recommends–I think I’ve read Jay Adams’ book but I don’t have it on my shelf.
There is just a tremendous difference in how a free/independent church group handles discipline vs. a hierarchal/authoritative church does. One of my concerns is that we are borrowing too much from authoritative models: we are disciplining views that disagree but are not schismatic. I don’t think that’s wise.
Just wanted to spur the discussion.
servant model is the biblical one
From the comments, it appears to me that the issue becomes where we draw our lines in disciplining a member. In going over my church’s minutes I read that 100 years ago people were disciplined for a variety of reasons. There was the one who played cards. Another was heard cussing. Still another went dancing at a neighbor’s house. A few failed to show up for church and were heard talking badly about the church out in the community. The most egregious offense seems to have been attending services at the Church of Christ, which was considered heresy. I doubt that any of these offenses would even raise an eyebrow today, much less would any of them result in any kind of censure or withdrawal of fellowship. I guess we have to choose our battles. Which sinner are we going to smack and which sinner are we going to ignore?
Dale, you’re right on–it’s a question of what sins truly rise to the level of being worth publicly dealing with the individual.
And I think that draws us to another question that influences our response: what is the authority in the church?
When it’s the pastor, the traditions, or the constitution/by-laws/confession/creed, then we start jumping on everything from cards to dancing to missing church the first Sunday of deer season every year.
When the authority is the Lord Jesus Christ through His Word, then there is a whole lot more grace and whole lot less nitpicking. Because if He’s the authority, then we’re only going to “discipline” issues that truly bring disrepute on His name. Not the things that annoy us, bother us, or other things about us.
Because one can be opposed to the pastor’s ideas and still be on the Lord’s side and seeking the spread of the Gospel. We have to keep that reality ever-present.
I would also ask just how much impact public shame has anymore. Kelly Boggs recently wrote an article about the Nixon resignation and how today’s culture seems to ignore humiliation or censure as powerful forces for good. In the church this seems to be present as well. “Who are you to judge me?”, would be the first question asked, instead of saying, “I’m wrong. I need to repent.” I’ve seen it multiple times. People in need of discipline usually just quit church altogether or move on to another one. If they stay and fight it out the pastor is oftentimes a casualty of the war that ensues.
I recently had a church member lash out on Facebook at our church with the accusation that he’d been kicked out and that his estranged wife was being accepted while parading her alleged affair at church. His untrue post was met with all sorts of sympathy and invitations to other churches where he would be welcomed and not judged as he had experienced from our church. Nothing supports his accusations. He’s simply an angry, bitter man in need of spiritual and emotional healing. Will we exercise discipline? No. He’s already shown that he’s living with the consequences of his choices. His reputation is blown. And he wouldn’t respond to any effort on our part.
In today’s world the church has much less “authority” in people’s lives than it once did. A sad reality indeed.
Hope that all makes sense. I’m typing from my phone.
And, therein lies the problem with Church discipline…does it not? Exactly what sins does the Church exercise Church discipline over? Who decides it?
I think that’s one of the reasons that Church discipline fell by the wayside a long time ago….it became a witch hunt, and someone’s personal preferences starting being the criteria….instead of letting the clear teachings of the Bible dictate what sins are ones, which to start discipline over. Church discipline should be done over things CLEARLY spelled out in the Bible as being sinful….and, even then, it should be something the Church feels is a clearly spelled out sin in the Bible. of course, we’ve got people, who would want to start discipline over missing Church for 2 weeks, or for a young man wearing his hair too long, or for someone weighing 255 lbs, instead of 170.
Too many times, Church discipline became a time for scolding, and giving those people a spanking; instead of being a loving expedition to restore them.
Also, it became a personal witch hunt for some people; nailing anyone’s hyde to the wall, who didn’t agree with every, personal preference they had.
Church Discipline takes a lot of wisdom. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be done. It should. I mean, when you’ve got Church members, who are living together unmarried, then you’ve got to do something about that. But, Church discipline should be done in love and with lots of wisdom. AND, the Pastor shouldn’t be like the Lone Ranger, and taking it all on by himself. The other Church leaders should be behind him, and involved with him.
David
VolFan….I’m glad we’ve found an issue we can agree on!
Church discipline is essential but it’s also dangerous.
Kinda like ministry in general….it sure is messy and hard and uncomfortable and can be abused….we must remain vigilant to honor and love God as well as, and as an outflow of that …honor and love people. That’s what it’s all about.
If the leadership is all on the sme page, setting the godly example as well as preaching and teaching biblically and consistently …… Then church discipline will be a rarity not the norm.
It’s not a badge of honor when church discipline is the norm….in fact it might be illustrative of some leadership defects.
Ouch. That even hurt to type.
David,
Usually, if it is a Matthew 18 issue it stops at verse 15 and no one knows about it. If it is a 1 Corinthians 5 issue it stops when the sinner repents and no one knows about it. It is when no one wants to repent that it becomes public. Even in the second step of Matthew 18 no one should know about it. Gossip is a sin, too.
Bruce,
True. But, the problem is when some people in the Church make their pet peeves the criteria for starting Church discipline. AND, they have enough influence to get the majority to back them up.
That seems to be what happened in the past…in many of the older Churches. They were kicking people out of the Churches for all kinds of things.
But, I do agree with what you said….Church discipline should start out with the person going to the offender one on one…and if the person repents, then that should be the end of it….or, when a person goes back with another person, and then the person repents…after hearing from the 2 people…then, it should end there….that should be the end of it.
I guess I’m just saying that it takes a lot of love and wisdom to be involved in Church Discipline..and, we shouldnt let it get out of hand.
David
David,
Agreed, however, we will only find out when we practice it. But, before we practice it, we need to practice forgiveness first. That way, if we approach someone the wrong way, we can look to forgive them.
Regarding no one knowing about the sin, this is clear in Matthew 18. But the situation in I Corinthians 5 was far past that point. Everybody already knew about it.
Proper church discipline starts waaay before most people typically think of it as starting. My brothers and sisters and I practice church discipline every time time we meet, every time we fellowship, every time the Word is preached from the pulpit. Every instance in which we exort or encourage fellow believers is part of maintaining discipline within the Body, and I daresay most issues of formal discipline which go awry is due to an improper application of this earliest form of common, constant discipline within the Body.
Valid point.
Prevention is far better than remedy.
I would argue that most churches that make disciples don’t really have a church discipline problem. It’s the ones that don’t that do.
How did half the comments come back to the same old alcohol and food issues?
#1: to use food to the point of personal destruction is sinful. Your definition of personal destruction is different from someone else’s. I cannot run a marathon. Neither does God’s calling on my life require that. Your calling might necessitate that. Am I sinning that I do not live up to your calling? Hogwash.
#2: If we are to spread out the consideration, I would argue that the two main issues brought above are way down the list–consistent public drunkenness would be much higher up, certainly. This is in terms of church membership–leadership is another story. I have a church member or two who drinks (allegedly in moderation). I would not give them the boot for that, but neither would I encourage they be added to the deacons. Same with the guy who’s had two bypasses and a stomach staple but consumes food unwisely still–he is damaging himself, encumbering his ability to provide for his family, and is unreliable because his health makes him so (and his choices are impacting his health, and he knows it and *does not care*).
I say this as one who does not drink (but has not always been able to say that) and is trying to eat less(but sometimes eats too much): if these are the only sins you have to worry about in your life, the lives of others, and your church, count yourself blessed and call it a day.
We have church leaders that victimize children, church members that live in rank immorality, and churches that could not communicate the basic love of Jesus to save their own souls, much less to draw someone else to Christ. When we fix that, let’s revisit whether or not a Christian should drink a beer with their triple-bacon cheeseburger and fries.
Dear Doug: Tell your father Larry that I like your comments on church discipline.