Corrective Discipline

CORRECTIVE DISCIPLINE

1. Admonition

The chief means of keeping heavenly pilgrims in the way, but the most neglected, is admonition. This is to be used by every church member when the issue is a private dispute; and by the spiritually mature in general, and the oversight in particular, when the issue is spiritual deterioration.

Private Disputes

The passage of Scripture relevant at this point is Matthew 18.15-17, which deals with private disputes, although it teaches principles which have a wider bearing, as we shall see later.

The teaching of this passage is that if a brother offends against you, you are not to disclose his offence to anyone at all, for that would be a sin against the law of love.

Rather, you are to go to see him privately. This is an obligation resting upon you. You are as much bound to do this, as he is to receive your admonition. The purpose of your visits is to endeavour to convince him of his fault, and to restore mutual good relations.

We must thank God that things usually end there! But we should solemnly note that the clear implication of the passage is that if your offending brother will not hear you, it is not at all likely that he will hear others. How we need to be able to accept the private admonitions of brethren!

If your brother will not hear you, you are to return with one or two others, in order that all that is said may be witnessed according to the requirements of Scripture [Deut. 19.15]. It is still you who is trying toCORRECTIVE DISCIPLINE

Having laid down the lines of approach to the subject, we must next consider what corrective discipline actually involves. The Scriptures reveal three ways of reclaiming wandering sheep, and we shall briefly examine each of them in turn.
win your brother. It is not a case of multiple pressure. Naturally those you have taken will do their part in seeking to gain your brother. But the main purpose of their presence is so that they can bear witness should the issue come to court – namely, the church.

If your brother will not hear you, and those whom you have brought with you, then, and only then, is the matter to be brought before the church. If he is proved to be in the wrong, and continues to be obstinate and impenitent, Christ directs the church to exclude him – to treat him as if he had never been part of it.

How you will be reprimanded by onlookers if you do that! ‘What!, will be the exclamation, ‘you expelled him for that’ But it is not so. You would gladly have restored him from his fault. But he has treated the Body of Christ with contempt, and this is indicative of something deeper. It is, as Calvin put it, to hold God and His tribunal in derision. It is indicative of a hardening of the heart, and a root of bitterness springing up, which is a sign of ‘failing of the grace of God.’ The offending brother does not, in practice, acknowledge that he has to submit to the judgment of the church of Christ, or that he is part of it. So the church is to treat him accordingly.

It is to be noted that the constant aim has been to restore the person concerned. But he refuses to be restored. He is guilty of contumacy, and thus is no longer to be considered a part of the Body.

Spiritual Deterioration

But we move on to consider the case of a member of the Body who has fallen into a fault, such as stealing or immorality, of which another member has knowledge. It is not a private dispute, so the passage in Matthew 18 is not applicable. What, then, is the ‘other’ member to do? Is he to tackle the sinning member himself?

We answer – no, not as a general rule, unless he is recognized as a man of obvious spiritual stature in the church [Gal. 6.1]. This is a task for the divinely-appointed oversight. They are bishops, or overseers, who have been appointed to rule. They are pastors, or under-shepherds, appointed to feed and to guard the sheep. They have been commissioned to watch over the souls of others, for which they must give account. They labour amongst the flock, and are over it in the Lord; and to admonish and warn is a principal part of their work [1 Thess. 5.12-13].

The task of elders is to take note of signs of spiritual deterioration, and, as good pastors, to speak plainly to those in whom they see them. They are to examine the charges made by others, to summon witnesses if the offence is not admitted, and to take appropriate action. The New Testament makes it clear that it is their principal task to keep pilgrims in the way. This involves plain speaking to those whose lives are not what they should be.
The New Testament does not call for the inauguration of ‘witch-hunts’, but it does insist that under-shepherds watch over their flocks. admonition is the chief means of correction used by a good father, and eIders are to be such fathers, who exercise the same authority, with the same spirit, in the church. They are explicitly forbidden to engage in the lording and bullying which passes for admonition in the world, and are exhorted to be examples to their flocks. Their oversight is to be willing and unconstrained; not for personal profit or as mere ‘duty’, but of a ready mind; and the clothing of humility is to be theirs as they exercise his responsibility. Such commands are intended to prevent admonition from being tyrannical.

How can an oversight fulfil its calling if there is no face-to-face correction in words?

Sometimes a winsome word is needed, sometimes a stern rebuke. Some people need to be wooed, others warned. The great Shepherd of the sheep did both, and under-shepherds must follow His example. False teachers most certainly need stern treatment, as Titus 1.13 and 3.10-11 make clear. But one who is weak in the faith will need different treatment, although it is still authoritative correction. To make this sort of distinction is basic to the pastoral office.

2. Suspension

Besides admonition, the Word of God reveals another measure designed to reclaim erring brethren, namely, suspension.

The passage we need to consider is 2 Thessalonians 3.6-15. Here Paul is talking about people whom the church still had definite grounds to consider as truly regenerate, and thus brothers in the Lord [vv 6,15]. But these people were guilty, not of one single lapse or fall, nor of spiritual deterioration which had gone on mostly unmarked, but of some manifest, overt, known irregularity. Their lives obviously did not match the Gospel. They had received clear apostolic instructions, but had refused to obey them [vv 7-8, 10-12, 14].

Paul instructed the church to withdraw from such persons [v6]; not to have company with them, that they might be ashamed [vl4]; but not to count any of them as an enemy, but rather as a brother to be admonished [vl5]. The offender was to be treated as a Christian who needed to be restored. Social intercourse with him was to be suspended, that he might be ashamed. But when church members did have contact with him, they were to admonish him for his sins – precisely what they already had been commanded to do in 1 Thessalonians 5.14.

What does this mean in practice today? We cannot stop disobedient Christians coming to church, for most of our places of worship are registered as such, and so the doors must be open for all who wish to enter. We cannot turn them away unless they have committed a breach of the peace, or something similar. The New Testament church may have been able physically to withdraw from suspended members, butwe cannot do so. How then can we put the principles of 2Thessalonians 3 into practice today?

The very least we can do is this: we can remove such persons from all positions of responsibility in the local church, whatever they might be. We can suspend them from active participation in church ordinances, such as the Lord’s Table, church-meetings, prayer-meetings, discussion, and so forth. And we can end all normal social intercourse with them.

But our purpose in all such behaviour is that when the person involved sees the Body smarting and being pained, he may realize that he is responsible, that he is the cause, and may be ashamed of the way he is living [vl4]. Hence the purpose is restorative. Genuine spiritual concern moves the church, under the direction of its oversight, to act in such a way, in order that the offending brother may be repentant and restored to full fellowship as soon as possible.

But what about the person who, having been thus suspended, and regularly admonished by the members he meets, shows no change of heart? Week after week goes by, and the church hopes and prays for his repentance and restoration; but he remains unchanged. He stubbornly refuses to hear the church. Once more it is a case of contumacy. So here too the principles of Matthew 18.17 come into operation. Such an unrepentant man is to be excommunicated.

3. Excommunication

We have seen that if either admonition or suspension, or both these measures of discipline, continue unheeded, the church of Christ is directed to exclude the offending person. We must again stress that this measure, like the others, is still designed to reclaim wandering sheep. Its intention is restorative. It is totally unlike the death penalty sanctioned by some in the past. The church uses ‘keys’, not a sword. It is a spiritual measure, and is designed to secure spiritual ends. It is best referred to as expulsion, but is usually known as excommunication. There are several references to it in the New Testament, but the most comprehensive is found in 1 Corinthians, chapter 5, to which we now turn.

V1 In the church of Corinth a known sin was being perpetrated. It was their duty to remove this offending person from the church.

V3 Although Paul is at a distance, he cannot view the situation with complacent indifference. He tells them what he, in his own spirit, had done with the offender. He tells them this to make it clear to the church what needs to be done; what must be done.

v4 ‘It is you who must do it’, he says, ‘you, the local church at Corinth, gathered in the name of the Head of the church, and with His power … I shall be with you in spirit. . .’

v5 ‘ . . you, the local church, must deliver this unrepentant man to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved at last. . .’ [Note how solemn and grave excommunication is; and yet its purpose is still restorative, remedial, healing, saving].

v6 ‘It is useless to engage in boasting, and to be so proud of yourself as a church.

Cannot you see what will happen if no action is taken? A little leaven will leaven the whole lump.’

v7 ‘The Jews purged out leaven from their houses before they sacrificed the Passover. But

Christ our Passover has already been sacrificed for us, and yet the old leaven of sin in the community of God remains. Purge it out.’

v8 ‘Let us keep continual festival, but let there be no trace of leaven among us. Out with malice and wickedness! It is to have no place in the Christian church. In with sincerity and truth!’

v9 ‘I am not telling you anything new. I have already told you not to keep company with fornicators.’

Vl0 ‘This cannot apply as far as your living in this world is concerned, otherwise you would have to leave it.

V11 ‘But as for professing Christians, it is a different matter. If they live in fornication, you are to have nothing whatever to do with them. You are to end social intercourse with them to the point where you no longer even eat with them. And the same applies to professing Christians who commit parallel sins.’

vl2 ‘Those outside the communion of the church are beyond my jurisdiction, but it is your responsibility as a local church to discipline members who do not walk worthy of the Gospel that they claim to profess.’

vl3 ‘Outsiders are not subject to the church’s discipline; God alone deals with them. But the wicked person in your midst must be put out of fellowship.’ [The plural verb shows that

Paul is asserting that this act is something in which everyone in the Body is to share].

Thus, briefly, runs the thread of 1 Corinthians 5. The chapter inculcates principles which shine out clearly. The first is that excommunication is the prerogative and duty of the gathered local church, and not of the civic power, or any external authority. It is something inflicted by ‘the many’ [2 Cor. 2.6]. Other New Testamentreferences seem to indicate that an apostle could excommunicate. But this is not what happened here, for Paul tells the Corinthian church that it should have acted without any prompting from him.

Although he gave the church the benefit of his own spiritual judgment, he did not come to conduct the excommunication, but commanded them to do it. Just as the local church is the admitting body, so also it is the expelling body. ‘Excommunication without consent of the church is a mere nullity’, said John Owen. It is an act of the gathered body.

Further, the chapter teaches the precise meaning and import of excommunication* Paul puts it in five different ways. It is a taking away from among the Body [2]; a delivering unto

Satan [5]; a purging out [7]; an ending of social intercourse [11]; and a putting away from among themselves [13]. Most of these descriptions are readily under-standable, except for the phrase ‘to deliver such an one unto Satan …’ in verse 5, which has caused much difficulty.
To understand this expression we must remember that all men and women are either under

Satan, or in Christ. When we receive a person into church membership we are declaring that we have sufficient grounds to believe his profession to be a Christian. We are aware that only ‘the Lord knoweth them that are his’. Yet we declare that as far as man can ascertain, he has the marks of a regenerate man. We therefore welcome him into the fellowship of the church.

By that act we do not make him a believer, nor do we deliver him from Satan unto Christ.

Rather, we declare that we have sufficient grounds to receive him as a brother in Christ, and do so. This does not necessarily mean that everyone in our church is regenerate. But we receive him because we hold that we have sufficient grounds for believing him to be regenerate.

Excommunication is obviously the exact opposite of this procedure. By it the church pronounces the offender to have sinned so grievously against the law of Christ as to forfeit the right to belong to the Fellowship of the church. We declare that as far as we are able to judge the matter, he has ceased to show the marks of a regenerate man.
In the act of excommunication we do not make him an unbeliever, nor do we deliver him from

Christ unto Satan. Rather, we declare that we do not have sufficient grounds to continue to receive him as a brother in Christ, and act accordingly. We no longer consider him to be one with us.

This does not necessarily mean that everyone expelled from the church is unregenerate,

for, if it did, Paul’s words in verse 5 would be meaningless. But we expel him because we do not hold that we have sufficient grounds for believing him to be regenerate.

‘ Those who want to know more should read Jonathan Edwards’ Works, volume 2, page 118, where there is an excellent sermon on ‘The nature and end of excommunication’.Hence, excommunication is not a dogmatic declaration as to a person’s eternal destiny. But it is an act of expulsion, and the most grave and solemn censure the church can exercise, done in direct obedience to the Word of God. As before, its intention is in no way punitive, but restorative. The church hopes that such action will awaken the expelled person to the dreadful danger of his position, and prays that the communication will be the means to bring about his repentance, and his return to the Saviour, the Head of the church.

In 1 Corinthians 5.5 Paul is teaching that as long as the man concerned is linked to the church, he is under the restraints of its admonition and so forth. But when he is put out, it is as if he had never seen part of it [Matt. 18.17]. The restraints of church fellowship cease to operate. Paul’s hope is that the misery and disastrous effects of inrestrained sinning will cause the prodigal to come to his senses, and to return to his Father’s house and be ultimately saved.

When, then, is excommunication to be effected? It is to be used when a person, having committed some gross sin which has been proved beyond dispute, remains impenitent [1 Cor. 5]. As we have also seen, it is to be used when admonition and suspension fail to cause the erring member to renounce his iniquity. In addition, it is to be used when a person is found to be heretical in some fundamental point of revealed truth, and will not be corrected [ 1 Tim. 1.19-20, Titus 3.10].

All this is, in summary, the work of corrective discipline. It is not the work of the magistrate, but of the brotherhood. It cannot possibly be done unless each church member is aware of his responsibilities. The immediate need in our churches is that pastors should give clear teaching on this subject to their congregations, and then seek to implement the instructions of Scripture. To reverse the order would be to court disaster and to create divisions.

Authors