A New View of Church Discipline?

[Guest]

I recently spoke with a lady concerning her view of church discipline, a view that I've never heard or considered before. Basically, it went like this:

How we apply the instructions of Christ in Matthew 18 hinge upon how we interpret Christ's command to treat the unrepentant sinner like a "tax collector and a Gentile." If we study Christ's example, we see that he spent a lot of time hanging out with tax collectors. (Not so much with Gentiles, since they mostly left Him alone. However, since they are lumped in with the same group as tax collectors, we can assume He would've treated both groups the same.)

In order to follow Christ's example, we also should spend a lot of time with unrepentent sinners, treating them the way Christ treated tax collectors, getting to know them even better in a much greater effort to reconcile them back to Christ and the church. In other words, we should consider the unrepentant sinner as being back at square one spiritually and consider ourselves as "starting all over again" with them.

She believes that just as Christ never disfellowshipped or refused to eat with anyone, whether publican or Pharisee, neither should the church. Rather, the church should remain friends with the unrepentant sinner and keep them in a place from which the church can continue to speak the truth in love in their lives. Better to have them hanging out with Christians than with other sinners, is her mindset.

On the other hand, Paul didn't seem to have this mindset, as I can think of numerous times he disfellowshipped other people. Nevertheless, it's hard to tell if this was Paul's own decision not to minister with folks he found troublesome, or if those people he disfellowshipped were also disfellowshipped by their local assemblies as well.

(When I brought up 1 Corinthians 5, the lady's reaction was to say we shouldn't consider Paul's commands as being prescriptive for all people in all churches at all times. I know this is true of some of Paul's writings, but I'm not totally certain how to discern the difference between the descriptive and the prescriptive, so I was at a loss for words regarding this.)

Her viewpoint stems from, I think, a belief that no one sin is worse than any other. In other words, why disfellowship someone for sexual immorality when most churches wouldn't disfellowship a person for gossip? Both sins are destructive, and they both hinder our relationship with God and other people. Why do we make such a big deal about homosexuality when most people in the church are guilty of gluttony or greed or pride, which is most often overlooked?

I have to admit, considering I've always been taught the traditional method of disfellowshipping (as a last resort) an unrepentant sinner, her viewpoint makes me feel a little uncomfortable, particularly in light of 1 Cor. 5. On the other hand, her point concerning the availability of Christ to everyone no matter what their spiritual state is a valid one, I think. As is her point that we tend to freak out over sexual sin but overlook deeper heart issues. Needless to say, I'm feeling a little torn.

Any thoughts, anyone?

[Guest]

In Matthew 18, Jesus was talking to his disciples who were raised up in Judaism. The most avoided classes of people among the Jews of that day were the tax collectors and gentiles. So his disciples understood perfectly that Jesus was saying that in the final step of dealing with the one who sins against you is to avoid him, if he refuses to listen to even to the assembly and repent.

At what stage a person's eating can be classified as "gluttony" or at what level a person's conversation can be assessed as "gossip" isn't always clear. There seems to be a spectrum in which the line is not clear over which one steps into sin. Nevertheless, I think it would be in order for the church to send someone or a group of people, in a spirit of humility, to investigate those who seem to be indulging in these vices, and if necessary, correct them.

On the other hand, adultery, homosexuality, theft, and murder seem pretty clear. You either have been involved in these things or you haven't. It is much easier to judge whether the person is guilty.

As for all sins being equal ---- baloney! That's a common view in our day, a view which is used to trivialize serious wrongdoing. If all sin is the same, how could Christ say to Pilate, "He who has delivered me to you has the greater sin"? John 19:11

If all sins are equal, we should feel as comfortable living next door to a murderer or serial rapist, as we would living next door to a liar.

[Guest]

Hi R.O. - nice to meet you.

These are just some thoughts, off the top of my head. (I'm a little distracted with a new grandchild).

- When Jesus said for that unrepentant person to be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer, I think it definitely meant dis-fellowship - in other words we do not relate to that person as to a fellow christian, ie. we should not continue treating them as if nothing is wrong, thereby affirming that it's acceptable to remain in unrepentant sin.
- however, we should relate to them as we would to any other non-born-again person, with love and not treat them as a leper if we meet them outside church meetings. (Matt 5:47 - And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?).
- I think that if a person has been disciplined by the church & their sin judged according to 1 Cor 5, even if we remain friendly toward them, they will probably not want to spend too much time with us - I imagine they would feel convicted and avoid us. (this has been my experience).
- I think how they react to us (and we to them) would depend to some extent on whether they acknowledge that what they are doing is a sin, & recognise that they just don't want to continue to count the cost of discipleship, or whether they try and twist scripture & think they will be OK even if they sin.
- so I think that lady is wrong in her view that it is better to have such a person to hang out with Christians than with other sinners - (if it means treating them like nothing is amiss) - in 1 Cor 5:5 Paul said specifically 'I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus- whatever that means exactly, I don't think it means to make the 'so-called brother' comfortable in his sin, right in our midst.
- I guess the way I read 1 Cor 5:9, to not associate with immoral people, is with the implication of not relating to them as to a fellow-believer.
v. 13 - But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

[Guest]

I wrote to you in the letter to no way associate with pornoi, not at all meaning the pornoi of this world system, or the greedy or thieves or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world system. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one called "brother" if he is a pornos or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or thief—no not to eat with such a one. I Corinthians 5:9-11

Paul clearly indicates that practising sinners are to be avoided, not because they are to be "treated as lepers" with a morally superior attitude, but in order to discipline them and thus to lead them to repentance.

Paul wrote the words quoted above in the context of dealing with the man who had been copulating with his step-mother. Paul's instruction to them was to,"Drive out the wicked person from among you." (vs13). The Corinthian church did just that. Through that excommunication and avoidance, the brother repented, and then Paul urged them in 2 Corinthians to completely forgive him and accept him again.

And I wrote as I did, so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice, for I felt sure of all of you, that my joy would be the joy of you all. For I wrote you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you. But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to you all.

For such a one this dishonour by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you give ear in everything. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs. 2 Corinthians 2:3-11

In our day, this kind of dishonour of a practising sinner by his church would probably not lead him to repentance, the reason being that we do not recognize the authority of Christ's Body. In our day, if the people of a church avoided someone, he would probably just leave and find a church which accepted him.

In Paul's day, it was a fearful thing to be cut off from a local expression of the Body. For that meant that the person was cut off from Christ. Jesus taught, "Whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven". That's the authority that Christ gave to his Assembly.

[Guest]

This is a very interesting thread.

So, does this mean that we should not be a friend of an unbeliever,
or, is this mainly speaking of the believer that is in sin? I have
one friend ( I don't see her often) that is not a christian but a very
thoughtful unbeliever, is it right to continue a friendship with her
according to scripture?

thank you,

[Guest]

It is not wrong to continue to befriend her.! And what has been said on this thread does not mean that you should not be a friend of an unbeliever. Jesus was a friend of sinners.

The practice of excommunication and avoidance is not about you and your purity, but about the unrepentant sinner who is called "brother" or "sister" and who meets in an assembly of Christ's disciples. The whole purpose of this discipline is to facilitate his or her repentance, and nothing more..

[Guest]

Thank you Paidion

[Guest]

Thanks to everyone who weighed in on this subject. I would have to concur with your conclusions on this one, I think. My friend has given some very convoluted reasons why we're not required to follow Paul's example concerning similiar situations. I think her main hang-up is her belief that all sins should be treated equally. After all, if you're not going to discipline someone for a lustful spirit, then why discipline them for sexual immorality?

I've tried to explain the difference to her concerning *occasional* stumbling (which we all are and will continue to be guilty of) and the *practice of sin* (which Christ instructs us to avoid). However, I just don't think I'm getting through. Any ideas on scriptures I could use to illustrate and explain this difference better? I know it's something a lot of believers get confused about!

[Guest]

I think context is important here. Paul was writing to small groups of believers that fellowshipped daily with one another in houses, ate their meals together and shared with one another in an intimate setting. These believers were in a family-like atmosphere which has little resemblance to the modern church.

It's important to remember that because in the context of modern day churches, with some exceptions, disfellowship only means that the offender has to drive down the street to another congregation. It probably means nothing to people who live in a society where churches line both sides of the street in every town. Is this what Paul had in mind?

I believe "church discipline" happens when you break fellowship with someone you actually have a real relationship with in order that they might repent. It's done out of love, like Paidion said. If the offender is living in unrepentent sin, the person who seeks to restore such a one(through avoidance) would have to know them well and have a bond with them. If there is no bond or respect, this discipline means nothing and would never bring about correction. If some church member I've only talked to in passing wanted to shun me... would I care? But if the person is someone I have respect for and we share a bond of fellowship, then I'll be quite motivated to change.

Too often, I think, the idea of church discipline leads to a "holier than thou" mindset, as Paidion alluded to. This is because we Christians (I'm the worst culprit) tend to judge people that we don't know very well... including other believers. It can lead to some scary stuff, as history has shown. I firmly believe in church discipline, if what we mean by church is "people with whom we actually share the bond of fellowship" and by discipline we mean "a corrective action that's done with a great deal of love and humility."