The Lord uses both the rod and staff. So should we.
One of the saddest moments in the life of any assembly must be when discipline of a public nature is required. Thankfully, these occasions are few in number, but when they occur, they are times of collective tears and anguish as the local body of Christ takes the necessary but painful action of excising some element that could otherwise jeopardize the life of the entire assembly.
Sadly, the grief of such occasions is often exacerbated by the fact that misunderstandings regarding the purpose of discipline and the necessity for it have divided assemblies and ruined the testimony. These misunderstandings may be partly due to the fact that this subject, because of its difficult and distasteful nature, has been largely ignored in the teaching of the Word.
It is therefore with a measure of trepidation that one approaches this subject, yet feeling it necessary to make some attempt to clarify the purpose of discipline, and to examine the various types of offense that are identified in Scripture, along with the prescribed level of discipline appropriate to each case.
DISCIPLINE’S PURPOSES
1. Restoration: It should be clearly understood, that all discipline has restoration ultimately in mind. We see this time and again in God’s dealings with Israel. Take the book of Judges as an example. No less than seven times God used enemies to discipline His people in order to bring about repentance and eventual recovery. Again, the Babylonian captivity was a discipline that was intended to bring God’s people back to Himself, and indeed they did return to Jerusalem after the discipline had run its course.
Coming over to the New Testament, where the apostle Paul deals with the serious matter of fornication in the assembly at Corinth, he first of all instructs the assembly “ Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person”
(1 Cor. 5:13).
However, when he writes his second epistle, and after the work of repentance had been wrought in the offender’s heart, he writes, Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him (2 Cor. 2:6-8).
Repentance had been affected. Restoration was now possible.
So we learn that while discipline may be punitive in the first instance, it is intended to be restorative in the final analysis.
In the same way, a surgeon takes up his scalpel and inflicts a wound which will involve pain, but his intention is the complete recovery of the person involved. So also scriptural discipline is never vindictive, but administered in the spirit of love, and in the best interests of the assembly and the person concerned.
2. Protection: Leaven [yeast] is consistently used in the New Testament as a symbol of the insidious spread of evil, whether moral or doctrinal. Leaven, when introduced to a dough mixture, begins to permeate until the whole mass is irretrievably affected. So also does evil that is allowed to fester in an assembly, without action to eliminate it. It will eventually affect the whole assembly for the worse. In 1 Corinthians 5:7, when the apostle is dealing with the serious offense of fornication in the assembly at Corinth, he likens the presence of this sin to leaven and commands them to “purge out therefore the old leaven.” He again uses this figure of speech when writing to the Galatians about the presence of doctrinal error in that assembly. He tells them, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). Thus, apart from the recovery of the person involved, godly discipline, when applied in accordance with scriptural teaching, will preserve the assembly from being ruined by the permeation of evil.
VARIOUS TYPES OF OFFENSE
In reading throughout the New Testament epistles, we discover that at least six types of offense are identified, and that these can be divided into two categories: offenses which can be remedied apart from excommunication, and those where excommunication is prescribed.
OFFENSES WHICH CAN BE REMEDIED APART FROM EXCOMMUNICATION
Unpremeditated Offenses: Paul writes “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).
The offense being dealt with here is not of the premeditated sort which is perpetuated as a habit of life, but rather it is a one-time slip, made in a moment of weakness. In such cases, the skillful hand of restoration is the answer, rather than the exercise of discipline. Perhaps the apostle Peter would best demonstrate this type of offense and its remedy. Peter denied the Lord with oaths and curses when he was caught off-guard by the maid as he stood by the fire, but the Lord sought him out after His resurrection, tenderly restored him and recommissioned him to become the leader of the greatest moment in the history of the early church, on the Day of Pentecost. Note that the passage specifies that the persons undertaking the work of recovery must be spiritual men—men of discernment, men who know how to balance firmness with tenderness, men who can restore without depreciating the seriousness of the offense that has been committed.
Disruptive Offenses (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; Titus 1:10-11): These are the “nuisance” types of offense which plague assemblies and cause heartache to overseers: the unruly, the disorderly, vain talkers, and deceivers.
It would appear that the main characteristic of these people is that they “speak unadvisedly with their lips” and create disorder and confusion among God’s people. Paul indicates that such people have to be dealt with in a salutary manner. He specifies that they have to be warned; we should not keep company with them; their mouths have to be stopped, and they have to be rebuked sharply. In this case, the offense has not yet reached the point where excommunication is prescribed, but rather, the application of severe strictures with the intent that such a brother will repent and be restored. One can readily see however, that this offense, if persisted in, after being admonished, could deteriorate to the point where it could be classified under “railing” which is mentioned as meriting excommunication.
Personal Offenses (1) (Mt. 18:15-17): In this case, the offense is of a personal nature between two parties. This type of offense is perhaps the most prevalent in assemblies. Most assembly troubles do not involve important doctrinal or moral issues, but rather petty personality clashes that disrupt the peace and the unity of the assembly and grieve the heart of the Lord.
In such cases, the technique is to keep the matter to as small a circle as possible. The offended party is told: “Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone” (Mt. 18:15). Unfortunately, the natural tendency is to immediately tell the matter to others, with a view to gathering support. When this is done, the assembly aligns itself with either of the parties and the unity of the assembly is destroyed. No, says the Lord, “between thee and him alone.”
If, however, this approach is unsuccessful, the offended brother is advised to take one or two more with him as witnesses, and to make a second attempt at reconciliation. Note that in both of these instances, restoration can be wrought through repentance, without further corporate action being taken.
OFFENSES WHERE EXCOMMUNICATION IS PRESCRIBED
Personal Offenses (2) (Mt. 18:15-17): Should matters proceed beyond the second attempt at reconciliation (see above), it is to be brought to the assembly. Presumably if the offender hears the assembly, he can be restored on the basis of his repentance. If he refuses to hear the assembly, he is to be excommunicated. The Lord says: “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Mt. 18:17).
Domestic Irresponsibility and Neglect (1 Tim. 5:8): In this case, a brother is failing to provide the necessities of life for his family. Clearly this is not addressing conditions of hardship where a brother lacks the resources or the opportunity to support himself or his family. In such a case, the assembly would surely be responsible to assist. The condition being described here is where a brother has the ability and opportunity to provide for his family, but lacks the will to do so. He prefers a life of indolence and ease. This is viewed as one of the serious offenses, demanding excommunication. Paul writes, “He hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8).
Doctrinal Offenses (Titus 3:10-11; Gal. 1:7-9; 5:10-11): There are three of these mentioned.
Propagation of False Doctrine: Instruction is given how to proceed when doctrinal error is being propagated in the assembly. The difficulty here is to determine when the label “doctrinal error” should be applied.
It must be recognized that there are certain areas where differences of opinion are permissible and allowable, and areas where they are not. For example, if a brother holds a different view on eschatology than is popularly accepted, we might not wish to have him teach it in our assemblies, but we cannot label divergencies on prophetic interpretation as “doctrinal error.”
Also, it is important to understand whether the error is the result of ignorance, which should be remedied by corrective teaching, or whether it is entrenched and established, and thus demanding excommunication. The whole issue demands a great deal of caution before proceeding with discipline, and indeed, even the heretic is to be warned twice before extreme action is taken against him (Titus 3:10-11).
The criteria to be used is: on fundamentals—immovable; on incidentals—flexible. By “fundamentals” we mean issues such as the Deity of Christ, His sinless, impeccable humanity, His atoning death and resurrection, the doctrine of salvation through faith, apart from works, etc. These have historically been held as fundamental to the faith, and there can be no flexibility on such matters. Doctrinal error in such areas would demand the extreme action of excommunication.
Holding False Doctrine: When we come to Revelation 2, we find that the church at Pergamos was held responsible for having those who “held” false doctrine. The Lord says, “I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam…So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Rev. 2:14-15). It would therefore appear that it is not sufficient to say that if someone holds false doctrine, discipline is not required, as long as he doesn’t teach it. These references in Revelation 2 make it clear that an assembly is intended to take proactive steps to deal with false doctrine that is being “held” as a matter of discipline, in order to prevent subsequent damage to the church.
Moral Offenses (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 2:4-11): The passages referred to give a listing of offenses which are to be considered serious enough for excommunication to be exercised. These are fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness, and extortion. This list is clearly not intended to be exhaustive because there are other items which are of a serious nature which would require excommunication that are not listed. For example, murder is not included but would clearly qualify for excommunication. The listing is intended therefore to be typical, and elders are required to exercise a great deal of discernment when identifying moral issues. The fact that an offense is not specifically listed does not mean that no action is required. This would be a travesty of truth. In the case of moral offense, the action is clear—putting away and denial of social contact until the discipline has run its course and brought repentance.
THE APPLICATION OF DISCIPLINE
Should an offense merit public corporate discipline, the question that must now be addressed is, “Who should exercise the discipline?” The apostle Paul gives direction on this matter when he writes, “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus…” (1 Cor. 5:4). He anticipates that the exercise of discipline will be an action of the church, and not only the action of the elders. This is further endorsed when he refers to the disciplinary action in Corinth as having been “inflicted of many” (2 Cor. 2:6). It was a corporate action of the whole church. It is the church who receives into the local fellowship, and it is the church that puts away.
The overseers in the church would typically present the case to the church with the prescribed discipline, for the affirmation of the local church. Similarly, when repentance and reconciliation have been affected, the offending party should be publicly received back into fellowship in the same manner as a new applicant would be announced and received.
In conclusion, discipline in the local church is essential for its spiritual health and vitality. Whatever low standards might pertain in the world around, the church is the house of God, and in His house His standards must be upheld. When discipline is required, it is critically important that overseers should first correctly classify the offense. It is here that so often things go wrong, and where the offense is either exaggerated or trivialized, and the wrong measures are applied. Too often a severe discipline has been exercised, where a lesser form is prescribed by Scripture. In other cases, a serious offense has been trivialized by the application of discipline which was too light for the matter.
Finally, discipline must never be exercised in a vindictive way, but with sorrow of heart, and with longings that the offender might be fully recovered through repentance and reconciliation.