Imagine That! A Church That Practices Discipline.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I certainly agree that the purpose of discipline is restoration, but I'm not so sure the church is doing the best thing in this case. If the woman has left the church I'm not sure what good will come from bringing it in front of the entire congregation. I agree the session and her pastor should pursue reconciliation and repentance, but does that include making her known in front of the entire congregation at this point if she no longer considers herself a member? I don't think it is, but I admire the church for confronting sin...

Consider the larger theological picture. Why did Christ proclaim the truth to the Jews, knowing they would reject Him?

2 Corinthians 2:15-17 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

Church discipline is not only a call to repentance for the one who has sinned, it is also a warning to those who haven't. That is why the the process is to be followed and completed.
But it is not for the church to judge the individual sins (as opposed to the sin of failing to repent and believe) of those outside the church.

The final action of a church court in the event of obstinate unrepentance is to publicly declare the person to be outside the local body of Christ. This woman has already publicly said that about herself, by her actions in leaving the church while under disciplinary action. Like a defendant at a trial standing in the middle of the courtroom and saying "I am guilty" there is then no need for the judge and jury to deliberate on exactly what evidence convicted the court of their guilt.

Normally, at excommunication, it is necessary to state to the congregation the nature of the offence for which the guilty party is unrepentant. As unpleasant as that may be, the congregation needs to know that there really was just cause for the excommunication. But if a member quits while under disciplinary investigation or prosecution then that itself if sufficient warrant for their excommunication, for they have effectively excommunicated themselves. There is then no further need to publicly give details of which particular sins they were being investigated for.

I would point you to the January 2009 issue of Tabletalk magazine. Read the article, "Principle vs. Pragmatism."
 
In my humble opinion, the elders' letter to the woman is pastoral and appropriate, whether or not we agree with their application of "tell it to the church" (which may mean, "tell it to all members publicly" or "tell it to the church officers"). It's sad that someone could join a church, expose their unrepentant sin, and expect the church to ignore it. May this cause the woman to ponder her steps.
 
I certainly agree that the purpose of discipline is restoration, but I'm not so sure the church is doing the best thing in this case. If the woman has left the church I'm not sure what good will come from bringing it in front of the entire congregation. I agree the session and her pastor should pursue reconciliation and repentance, but does that include making her known in front of the entire congregation at this point if she no longer considers herself a member? I don't think it is, but I admire the church for confronting sin...

Consider the larger theological picture. Why did Christ proclaim the truth to the Jews, knowing they would reject Him?

2 Corinthians 2:15-17 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

Church discipline is not only a call to repentance for the one who has sinned, it is also a warning to those who haven't. That is why the the process is to be followed and completed.
But it is not for the church to judge the individual sins (as opposed to the sin of failing to repent and believe) of those outside the church.

The final action of a church court in the event of obstinate unrepentance is to publicly declare the person to be outside the local body of Christ. This woman has already publicly said that about herself, by her actions in leaving the church while under disciplinary action. Like a defendant at a trial standing in the middle of the courtroom and saying "I am guilty" there is then no need for the judge and jury to deliberate on exactly what evidence convicted the court of their guilt.

Normally, at excommunication, it is necessary to state to the congregation the nature of the offence for which the guilty party is unrepentant. As unpleasant as that may be, the congregation needs to know that there really was just cause for the excommunication. But if a member quits while under disciplinary investigation or prosecution then that itself if sufficient warrant for their excommunication, for they have effectively excommunicated themselves. There is then no further need to publicly give details of which particular sins they were being investigated for.

You cannot "quit" a church. That is implicit in your analysis, and it is incorrect. You cannot do that any more than you can be charged with a crime in the U.S., and then decide, "well, I'll just move to Canada, and it will go away."

There are three ways to leave a church:

  1. Transfer
  2. Excommunication
  3. Death
 
A closer analogy would be someone committing a crime in the US for which the punishment is banishment to Canada. That person flees to Canada of their own accord. There is no way for the US to extradite criminals from Canada. The legal process against them was incomplete when they fled.

Should they then be tried in absentia in the US for the specific crimes of which they stood accused?

Yes, my view is partially motivated by pragmatism. But I am not saying that someone can just choose to leave a church, especially not while under discipline, nor am I saying that they can leave other than by excommunication, transfer or death. I am saying that, by leaving in such circumstances, they excommunicated themselves, and that the specifics of the sins for which they were under discipline are now a moot point. So, for pragmatic reasons, I don't think those specific sins need be publicly announced.
 
A closer analogy would be someone committing a crime in the US for which the punishment is banishment to Canada. That person flees to Canada of their own accord. There is no way for the US to extradite criminals from Canada. The legal process against them was incomplete when they fled.

Should they then be tried in absentia in the US for the specific crimes of which they stood accused?

Yes, my view is partially motivated by pragmatism. But I am not saying that someone can just choose to leave a church, especially not while under discipline, nor am I saying that they can leave other than by excommunication, transfer or death. I am saying that, by leaving in such circumstances, they excommunicated themselves, and that the specifics of the sins for which they were under discipline are now a moot point. So, for pragmatic reasons, I don't think those specific sins need be publicly announced.

Pragmatism is neither wise nor confessional (1689 LBC 26.7). Excommunication can only be accomplished through an action taken by the lawful officers of the church (pastor and elders). An individual cannot excommunicate themselves. I'll be direct. You are advocating individualism. The individual supercedes the church. That's a dangerous road to take.

The burden is on you to support your pragmatism with scripture and that, within the boundaries of the confessions. If you can't do that, my counsel to you is to drop this line of reasoning.
 
A closer analogy would be someone committing a crime in the US for which the punishment is banishment to Canada. That person flees to Canada of their own accord. There is no way for the US to extradite criminals from Canada. The legal process against them was incomplete when they fled.

Should they then be tried in absentia in the US for the specific crimes of which they stood accused?

Yes, my view is partially motivated by pragmatism. But I am not saying that someone can just choose to leave a church, especially not while under discipline, nor am I saying that they can leave other than by excommunication, transfer or death. I am saying that, by leaving in such circumstances, they excommunicated themselves, and that the specifics of the sins for which they were under discipline are now a moot point. So, for pragmatic reasons, I don't think those specific sins need be publicly announced.

We are not permitted to excommunicate ourselves. Period.
 
"Excommunicate themself" was the wrong phrase for what I was attempting to say, which was that in leaving the church and denying that the elders had any authority over them was itself a disciplinary offense.

However, this discussion seems to have moved tangentially away from the OP, and I'm not sure that it can be continues profitably.
 
Archlute;

You are making the assumption that the women were informed by the mentor rather than by the pastor. The article makes no such connection. There is no room for women to be sitting in on a person in a vindictive manner, where the elders should rather be present.

With all respect, you are assuming it was the pastor who was gossiping, given what the article says..I take it the Mentor let others know..

Hancock learned that her private sessions with her mentor hadn’t been so private after all, when in October her mentor pulled her aside in church and asked her come into another room.

“In the room, there were several women that I never told my business to. And they proceeded to tell me about my business and what I was doing and what a sinner I was — just persecuting me.” Hancock said. “One of the ladies was even saying ‘I was at your house when you didn’t come home all night.’"

Likewise, when Reformed congregations engage in having pseudo-offices such as a "Stephens Minister" incorporated into their system then trouble will be sure to follow. There needn't be any other position in the church apart from the minister, elders, deacons, and the general office of the laity. A layman can minister as a mentor without the need to institute a series of formal steps such as "leadership training", signing documents, and the like. It gives them a false sense of formal office, and meddles in the affairs over which a minister and elders have primary responsibility.

I would disagree with you on this, as there is no formal office to hold as a Stephens Minister, it is a lay ministry. Even with the pastor, elders and deacons, if they spent as much time w/ each congregant as a Stephens Minister does with their one care receiver each week, they would not have time for anything else.

How often each week do you meet with members of your congregation who are hurting through the death of a spouse? How about the elders and deacons? Do they set aside an hour or two each week to sit and listen to and pray with and encourage and comfort that person, through-out the first year after that loss? What about after a child dies? or if a spouse walked out?
or if a spouse is in the Military in a war zone, do you set aside a time each week to really listen to their concerns and fears and offer them words of comfort and encourage them and pray with them? Other than on the Lords Day? Do your deacons and elders set aside a time each week to do that with those members?

Do you have time in your schedule to meet with everyone in your congregation who is hurting and in need of that one on one time, once a week for a year or two?

Our pastors/elders/deacons don't..they may know of the initial needs and be able to help with those, but they don't have the time to really be there for that person as they struggle with those things.

I can not tell you the number of people I have heard say they left a church because nobody was there for them when they needed it most, when they were hurting the most. The pastors would put them off or tell them get over it all ready, trust God..but not giving them an ear to really listen to their hurts.

In Stephens Ministry the lay person is trained to listen and encourage and pray for and with that person, and be there for the person who is hurting, when the pastors/elders/deacons or even family and other friends can not be..and the person is comforted in knowing that at least for an hour or two each week, this person is going to be there for them..through that first holiday, or anniversary of their wedding, or birthday or anniversary of the death of their spouse, when nobody else is, when everyone else is telling them to get over it all ready..or to just trust in God, but yet, not being able to talk about the person and their life together. Typically, after the initial loss, after the funeral and the initial month they get tossed aside and ignored, and even forgotten.

Not everyone knows how to help and Stephens Ministry trains them how to be there. but to be honest, not everyone cares to do that, to be able to set aside that time for another person when they look at their own schedule and how busy they are, they become selfish..but in Stephens they make a commitment to meet with that person once a week, to be there for them.
 
The goal of discipline is restoration. But discipline is also a bounded process, and it cannot actively seek restoration in all circumstances. To attempt to do so is to confuse means and ends, for while the goal is restoration, the means is expulsion. By leaving the church in such circumstances she has effectively expelled herself; also, denying that the church has disciplinary authority is itself a disciplinary offence.

By leaving the church while under disciplinary investigation the member not only puts themselves outside the scope of the disciplinary process, they effectively plead guilty (by taking upon themselves the punishment) of whatever they were charged with. Note also that, unlike a criminal trial, there is no need for a disciplinary process to decide exactly what sins were committed, for the punishment is identical in any case.

Church discipline is not about convicting for past sins, but for ongoing, unrepentant sin (even if the sin is not being actively committed at that point in time.) It decides not what a member has done wrong in the past, but what they are doing now. A member who removes themselves from the jurisdiction of the church disciplinary process could only be charged for what they have done wrong previously, not what they are doing wrong currently, which is not the point of discipline.

There may be instances where the specific sins of a particular individual need to be known to the wider congregation, for example, if the sins have had other church members as participants or victims, or both. But these situations should be rare.

In this case, nothing more needs to be said to the congregation but "Ms X was under disciplinary investigation, during which she denied that the church had the authority to discipline her, and removed herself from the church. As such she is to be considered as persona non grata until she repents." There is no reason for the congregation to know the specific details of her sin - be it sexual sin or any other type - in such circumstances.

There is much correct in what you say. The context of "church discipline" is a bit broader than many commonly think of it in our generation.

It is one of the marks of a biblical church. In fact, John Calvin inferred that it is one of the essentials of a "true church."

Here is what the PCA constitution describes as the purpose, scope, and procedure of "church discipline" (emphasis added)

PART II
THE RULES OF DISCIPLINE
CHAPTER 27
Discipline – Its Nature, Subjects and Ends
27-1. Discipline is the exercise of authority given the Church by the Lord
Jesus Christ to instruct and guide its members and to promote its
purity and welfare.

The term has two senses:
a. the one referring to the whole government, inspection, training,
guardianship and control which the church maintains over its
members, its officers and its courts;
b. the other a restricted and technical sense, signifying judicial process.
27-2. All baptized persons, being members of the Church are subject to its
discipline and entitled to the benefits thereof.
27-3. The exercise of discipline is highly important and necessary. In its
proper usage discipline maintains:
a. the glory of God,
b. the purity of His Church,
c. the keeping and reclaiming of disobedient sinners.
Discipline is
for the purpose of godliness (1 Timothy 4:7); therefore, it
demands a self-examination under Scripture.
Its ends, so far as it involves judicial action, are the rebuke of offenses, the
removal of scandal, the vindication of the honor of Christ, the promotion of the
purity and general edification of the Church, and the spiritual good of offenders
themselves
.
27-4. The power which Christ has given the Church is for building up, and not
for destruction. It is to be exercised as under a dispensation of mercy and not of
wrath
. As in the preaching of the Word the wicked are doctrinally separated from
the good, so by discipline the Church authoritatively separates between the holy
and the profane. In this it acts the part of a tender mother, correcting her children
for their good, that every one of them may be presented faultless in the day of the
Lord Jesus. Discipline is systematic training under the authority of God’s
Scripture. No communing or non-communing member of the Church should be
allowed to stray from the Scripture’s discipline.
Therefore, teaching elders must:
a. instruct the officers in discipline,
b. instruct the congregation in discipline,
c. jointly practice it in the context of the congregation and church
courts. 88, 91
27-5 THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
27-5. Scriptural law is the basis of all discipline because it is the revelation
of God’s Holy will.
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.
88

One thing to keep in mind here. It appears this person vowed before God and publically before the church to walk obediently and to submit to her discipline. This is not a conditional promise.

Ex-communication is by its nature public to the church. It is a final and most drastic remedy after many other loving steps have been followed, ample time is given to repent, and the offender is made well aware of the process.

Earlier steps ordinarily are much more private and involve much time and effort of the church. Sin is costly.

It is generally only extreme, prolonged impenitence that results in ex-communication.

After ex-communication the person is treated "as if" they are an unbeliever by being cut off from the church (this should apply all denominations of the Body of Christ). In effect, at that point, they are formally turned over to God for future discipline. Even then, it is with the hope that God may yet, allow them to be reclaimed.

The ends of discipline are several:

1) the Glory of God
2) the purity of His Church
3) keeping and reclaiming of disobedient sinners

I like the phrase, "The power which Christ has given the Church is for building up, and not for destruction."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top