Church Disciplin

But doesn't it still have to be confronted for the best interests of the individual as well as the church?? I think psychologizing it is the wrong approach. It is sin ... the reasons don't matter. That is not unloving. I have long been a big proponent of the idea that we spend way too much dwelling on things we can't change. In counseling, what happened years ago is not important. It can't be changed; it can lead only to the blame game. What we need to know is Why did you do what you just did? What was the thought process that led you to think you could violate God's laws and get away with it?

Obviously we need to use tact and grace in our speech. But I am not convinced that painful home lives are valid reasons not to follow the biblical pattern of dealing with sin.

 

Larry, for those reasons you already mentioned.

Discipline has a two-fold purpose:

1. The separation and (hopefully) restoration of the believer.
2. The purity of the church.

Paul treats the issue as though it should have already been severely dealt with.

Matthew 18 is about offenses between people. Sexual sin is often hidden and unknown.

In I Cor. 6, Paul makes sexual sin out to be the worst, as it alone is a sin against the body.

 

If you take a fully grown plant and cut it off at the stem, the seed is still there and the plant can still grow right back into an even fuller plant...thus the reason for prunning trees. Fact is, sin is often times the same way and it often has a root and a seed where and when it was planted. It might sound like I'm psychologizing sin but fact is this is truth. One might know that what they are doing is sin, but it's much harder to obstain from the sin if that sin is where they are finding comfort (even a false sense of comfort) so when they are excommunicated from fellowship of those who are to Love as Christ loves, it hurts even deeper.

You may think this is all Dr. Spock sounding, but seriously think about this. If a little girl grows up in a home with a father who has molested her for years and she is led to believe that this type of affection is natural and okay, then when she is a grown adult she won't really know how to accept honest, pure love and affection from any male who is well intentioned but she will reflect to what she knows..a sexual relationship. The sin of the father abusing his daughter plants a sinful seed in her and it will cause damage for time to come. Yes of course there is hope for restoration and freedom through Jesus, but she has to realize what is pure love and not sexual lust which drives one's relationship, otherwise, she'll continue on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying do not confront the sin, just be mighty careful about excluding one from fellowship just because you don't feel your seeing the "restoration results" you wanted to see.

Btw...the reasons matter very much, sin isn't always an open and shut case.

 

BTW...when i said the sin of the father plants a sinful seed in the daughter...i didn't mean it's the daughter's fault her father is abusing her...just wanted to clearify that.

 

Onestand,

I understand what you are trying to say, but the root of sin is disatisfaction with God and that is what we must address. Church discipline is not something that takes place over night. I am not for rushing into it, which is why I disagree with DD that sexual sin does not require the process. I think it does. I think you treat sexual sin like anything else. YOu confront it, you take the time to deal with, and go through the process.

As for restoration results, over a period of time you can sense whether someone is tender and interested, or hardened and disinterested. I think discipline takes place for the latter. We dealt with that here a number of years ago. A lady in the church and her daughter were both involved in sexual sin (unrelated). They were both tender at the beginning and I was willing to work with them. Over time they both became hardened to point of point blank telling me they thought God's standards were wrong. At that point, they left me with no other option. We disciplined them from the body.

As for sin being open and shut, it is pretty much. I am not sure what kind of sin you think might not be open and shut. Perhaps you could enlarge on that.

 

DD,

It should have already been dealt with, but I don't think that means we skip the personal confrontation and one on one, two or three, churhc body routine. Once it becomes a public sin, it requires public confession. But that dones't mean you skip the process and go right to the "vote them out" stage.

 

What offense is there Larry? It is sin of the worst kind.

All who are restored need to go before the church.

It doesn't come down to a church vote.

What about a church that decides to keep the person?

I think the sexual sin is handled differently.

 

It is a very serious sin to be sure. But there is nothing in Scripture that leads me to believe it should be handled differently.

If it gets to a public knowledge, then yes, public confession must take place. The general rule is that the extent of the knowledge/effects is the extent of the confession.

There is no provision in Scripture for the inclusion or exclusion of anyone from membership apart from the vote of the body. If you admit or exclude someone from teh body without a vote of the body then you are no longer a Baptist. In Baptist polity, the body decides its own membership and matters.

The church is wrong, but they are still the body. I know of a church where this happened. The pastor is still there and the church has grown. I don't know what effect it had.

But based on what Scriputural teaching?? I am not trying to be argumentative. I simply do not see any precedent in Scripture for this. There is no indication that sexual sin is to be handled any differently than any other sin warranting exclusion from teh body. That doesn't mean its not serious. It most certainly is. It just has to be handled through the biblical pattern.

 

Larry, I think Jesus was explaining what to do when offenses arise.

I think when Paul addressed the sexual sin, he was giving us instruction what to do.

Is there any indication the church in corinth voted on the matter? They had direct revelation. They didn't need to vote.

 

So would it be fair to say that Paul was applying the teaching of Jesus? It sounds like what you have said here perfect parallels.

Jesus was explaining what to do when offenses arise.
Paul ...was giving us instruction what to do [about sexual sin].

I am not sure I see the dichotomy you are going after here.

Yes, I think the indication that they voted was in the plural imperatives that Paul used to tell them what to do. Yes, it was direct revelation, but they still had to do it.

 

I think part of the problem with dealing with the issue of sin and accountability, is that people are most often not grounded in the Word to start with. They are having a difficult time applying it to everyday living...let alone dealing with sin issues and edifying and encouraging others with its use. When we or someone else stumbles, in love, we must help them, as directed in the Scriptures. Not to hurt or destroy, but to restore.

On the issue of being treated the same or viewed the same in churches....money, power, social status is just as much a part of churches as it is in the 'real' world. One friend said to a pastor I know, who said every one was equal in the church...."Yes...some are just a little more equal than others."

 

Pastor Larry,

I did already expound on this topic and give example to what would not just be open and shut sin. Not all sin is, in fact a good portion of sin is from a seed pasted down. Alcoholism, abuse, sexual sin, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, addictions to drugs, many more all this can and most likely does go back past the present problem.

I still do not and will never believe it is right on the part of the church to actually excommunicate any individual out of worship, that is where they need to be in the first place no matter if the sin continues or not. Perhaps a step back in giving them space but definately not kicking them out...that's just wrong.

 

Church discipline has restoration in mind first and foremost. Putting them out is a last extreme resort. To begin with, discipline should be done in private with two or more witnesses that can be trusted not to gossip. "Busybodies" need not apply as a witness.

More discipline should be practiced in the area of "inactive" members. Churches should purge their padded rolls of people that don't ever attend. Membership means you are a "member" in the Body of Christ. Non-attenders are not being "members" when they stay away.

 

So on what basis do you suggest both Christ and Paul were wrong??? They both said to remove fellowship from an individual who claims to be a believer while living in open sin.

Secondly, how does a person living in open unrepentant sin worship anyway??

Thirdly, I have always maintained that a disciplined member is not prevented from attending the public services of the church. They are prohibited from fellowship within the church or with members of the church body.

The difficult thing for your position is Scripture. Scripture clearly commands the removal of certain people from the membership and fellowship of the body.

 

PastorLarry, perhaps we should define what fellowship is then. I am fully aware of the scriptures used in upholding to this concept and I don't believe Jesus or Paul meant for anyone to be excluded from worship...btw, if unrepentant people can't worship then NNE can worship because we all live in unrepentant sin every day of our lives.

I am curious though, if not excluding them from attending services then what exactly are you excluding them from????

 

1 Corinthians 5:1-7 1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast-- as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Matthew 18:17 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

These are instructions that involve removing the person from the fellowship of the church. They are plain and clear. The professing believer who is living in open unrepentant sin is not to have any contact with church members unless that contact is for the direct purpose of confrontation and seeking repentance.

I certainly don't. For the believer confession of sin should be a regular occurrence throughout the day. Those who worship God must worship out of purity. An unbeliever, or someone living as an unbeliever, cannot worship God.

Any fellowship, any contact, apart from the public teaching services of the church. If that person comes to church after having been formally disciplined, everyone who talks to that person should be confronting them about their sin against God and the body. It should start with me as the pastor. It should be loving and filled with grace and humility, but it must take place.

 

PastorLarry,

Don't be fooled into believing that you do not sin. Not one of us is actually "worthy" to worship God but because of God's grace upon us we can do so without blame.

Once again, I've read those scriptures over and over and over and I still do not believe this means to exclude people from church. Especially when Jesus had no problem sitting down with the sinners and eating, that was definitely fellowship.

 

I said nothing of the kind. I do sin. But I confess and repent. I do not live in it. That is the distinction when you look at 1 Cor 5:12 -- there are "so called brothers" who are living like unbelievers.

All believers are worthy through Christ. We enter in by a new and living way, we come boldly before his throne.

Notice how you conflated two things. Your first sentence deals with professing believers who are living in unrepentant sin. Your second sentence deals with unbelievers.

In the second half of 1 Cor 5, Paul addresses this specific distinction you have tried to make.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Paul anticipated your objection and makes a clear distinction between those in the world who need to be saved and those "so called brothers." With the first, we are to associate; with the second we are not even to eat.

The encounters you reference with respect to Christ are clearly in the first category. Church discipline addresses the second. These passages seems absolutely explicit. I do not understand how you can read these passages and find something else in them.

What in the world do you think these passages mean??

 

No no, Where Christ was concerned he ate with the sinners plain and simple. My point is that Paul and Christ DID NOT mean for us to shun one for unrepentant sin, YES WE ALL HAVE THEM. HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE, seems to me to exclude one is to cast a stone.

 

My friend, you are denying the explicit teaching of Scripture. In Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5, as well as Titus 3 and 2 Thess 3, we are told to remove fellowship from people who live in open unrepentant sin. There can be no debate that that is what both Christ and Paul said.

You quote a favorite passage of some without recognizing what it is saying. The "cast the first stone" comment in not about confrontation for sin. That is commanded. It is about hypocrisy. It is the same teaching as Matt 7, Judge not that you be not judged. It says "for you will be judged with the same judgment you judge." That passage is about hypocrisy. Christ did judge the woman, and told her to stop. He could do it becuase he was willing to be judged by the same standard. Paul was willing to be judged by the same standard he gave in 1 Cor 5. The issue is hypocrisy--those who want to condemn other while they do the same thing.

Christ did eat with sinners. Paul's command is to not eat with "so called brothers" who live a particular lifestyle. It is clear that two different types of people are involved: Sinners and so called brothers. Both Christ and Paul commanded the latter to be put out of the church, and the former to be evangelized.

You cannot legitimately say that Christ and Paul were wrong. They are clear in what they say.

And, no, we don't all live in unrepentant sin.