Dismissal of a Wayward Member or a 'Meddling' Pastor

In response to the two that asked questions about my position, Jesus gave the method for conflicts within the church.

Sexual sin is a very grave sin. Paul even said in 1 Cor. 6 that sexual sin is done against one's own body whereas all other sin is done outside of one's body. There is a difference. Also, Paul was crystal clear about the man in sexual sin. Paul was surprised and then upset that such a person was still in the church. Remedy: immediately cut-off. Such an act is the most loving thing to be done. If sexual sin is not immediate dealt with, don't be surprised if others feel that they can also get away with it.

This is my personal theology. I also is something I have seen firsthand. My experience did not dictate my theology.

As far as having a spine goes, alot of preachers won't discipline because it might drive away the big givers or prominent families or whatever. They are spineless.

 

I attend a church where church discipline is faithfully used.

One of the reasons it is a "smooth" process is because our pastors have taught us repeatedly about this doctrine. It is also spelled out clearly in our church bylaws what the various forms of discipline are, how a severe case of discpline would be dealt with (like the pastors bring the case before the congregation, and we vote type of thing), and so on, so all members are very much aware of what is going on.

I've also seen churches where the pastors and people are really trying to be faithful to God's word..but were never really taught about church discipline. And then some serious issue arises where it is obvious "something" needs to be done..and alot of chaos results because people are not sure what should be done..etc etc or what to expect. I've actually witnessed this in 2 churches that are very dear to me over the past few years.

-kman

 

Let me ask you all a question.

What would you say to a pastor who determined that Matthew 18 did not apply in all cases of church discipline? One reason being, that the church did not exist when that was written.

Let me give you a scenario. A church business meeting goes sour. Frustrated deacons and pastor do not handle the meeting well and the divisive issues are shelved. Weeks later (With no individual meetings or talks held) members who spoke out at the meeting are called before a deacons committee and it is PREDECIDED that the offending members will be put on probation for 6 months (voting rights suspended) before even being heard from or talked to about the matter.

This "Divisiveness" is deemed a sin against the church as a whole, not individuals, and therefore, people are told Matthew 18 does not apply.

What are your thoughts on a situation like this?

(I have mine, but don't want to bias other people's opinions.)

Thanks!

[ October 09, 2002, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: WW2'er ]

 

What are your thoughts on a situation like this?

The officers of such a church are manipulative and dishonest with the Scriptures. They wouldn't have to discipline me - I'd resign my membership immediately. These men have become lords over God's heritage.

[ October 09, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: D Moore ]

 

D Moore, I don't know how your church is set up, but elders are to be publicly rebuked. There is no meeting in private.

 

Is there ever a church discipline situation where the Matthew 18 principle does not apply???

Thanks, and if anyone else has comments about the scenario I mentioned above, please feel free to write them.