7
Tell It to the Church
We leave the realm of informal discipline as we move from step 3 to step 4 in the disciplinary process. This is a major change. It means that the church officially now takes cognizance of the problem. It also means that the seriousness of the problem has progressed to the point where it has reached the court of last resort. A brother under official discipline is in a danger zone and should be told so. Step 4 is the last opportunity for the willful brother or sister to repent and be reconciled under the loving care of members of the church.
Of course, a matter may not have progressed to this point through all the preceding steps of discipline; it is possible, as in the case of incest mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5, for a matter to originate at the official, formal level. When an offense against an individual or the church is so open and apparent to all that it is a matter of public fame (in 1 Corinthians 5:1 Paul puts it this way: “It is generally reported . . .”), then the officers of the church may begin disciplinary action at step 4 without going through the previous steps. Indeed, if they do not do so, they are remiss, as Paul indicates in verse 2: “And you are arrogant! Shouldn’t you rather have mourned and removed from your midst the one who has done this thing?” Presumably, according to verse 6, they were “boasting” about their open-mindedness in allowing this matter to continue without discipline.
In some ways it seems that what Paul said to the church was more severe than what he said about the incestuous son. His strong reprimand of the church for failing to exercise discipline and for having a lax attitude toward sin in their midst ought to be a trenchant warning to many churches today.
Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:17a are as follows:
And if he refuses to listen to them (the counsel-or/witnesses), tell it to the church.
Obviously, these brief words lack a clear statement about how to carry out Jesus’ instructions; no process for telling the church is even outlined, let alone detailed. Therefore we shall have to piece together the ways and means as best we are able from other passages of Scripture and from an application of the principles of decency and good order that are required by God in 1 Corinthians 14.
I think it goes without saying that to tell it to the church is not to be done by a brother standing up in the middle of a worship service (in which there is a mixture of believers and unbelievers: according to 1 Corinthians 14:23-25, unconverted persons were allowed to attend Christian worship services) and declaring what has happened. That would violate the principles of good order set forth in 1 Corinthians 14, and it would also violate the command to tell it to the church. At this point, the world has no right to know about the matter. That fact will be elucidated later in this chapter. The church alone must hear.
These considerations mean that one must tell the church either at a closed meeting of its membership (those who are baptized and are thereby under its care and discipline), duly called by the elders in a decent and orderly manner for that purpose, or one does so by telling the elders in their capacity as representatives of the church. Frequently in the Old Testament when God wished to speak to Israel as a whole, He summoned and addressed the elders, who then conveyed His message to the people (cf. Exodus 3:15-16; 19:3, 7; Deuteronomy 31:28, 30 (here the “assembly of Israel” is clearly equated with the “assembly” of elders), etc.). This is probably the meaning of “tell it to the church”: tell it to the church by telling it to the elders of the new Israel.
When the elders tell the church, they must be sure that only the members are informed of the situation. This could be done at a closed meeting of the congregation or it could be done by letter, telling each member to read and destroy the letter when he has finished reading it so that it may never fall into the hands of nonmembers. In any letter or meeting informing the congregation that a brother has refused to deal with his sin and be reconciled, clear instructions must be given not only about how to treat him while under discipline (see infra), but about the fact that this is privileged information, belonging to the members of the congregation alone.
There is some indication that the elders themselves, being the first informed about the recalcitrant brother or sister, should seek to persuade him or her about the sin before telling the congregation at large. That is why on the diagram I have divided the fourth step into two phases (A and B) by a broken line. It is one step, in two phases, carried out decently and in order: (A) The elders officially deal with him and (B) then, if that is unsuccessful, the entire congregation does so. Now, what is the basis for such a division?
First, the idea of such a division might be indicated by the rules for good order that I have been stating. There are intricate measures to be taken carefully, and it is important at every point in the process that the elders should be in charge, guiding and taking care that nothing goes wrong. The members will need instruction. One can see this from the very nature of the case.
But there is more. There is an indication that the leadership first attempts to help the offender before turning him over to the entire congregation for admonishing. Listen to these words of Paul: “Now whoever doesn’t obey what we (not Paul as an apostle, but as a fellow elder with others1) say in this letter, mark that person . . .” (2 Thessalonians 3:14a). Here the congregation gets involved after Paul and the others who worked with him had made an effort to reach a sinning brother. And along with that order—elders, then congregation—comes instruction for the congregation as I indicated before (cf. also vv. 14-15).
It would seem that there is no other adequate way to implement Christ’s command while at the same time safeguarding His requirements for privacy and the good order and decency of the church.
There are many questions and many problems associated with this fourth step of church discipline. I shall try to deal with some of them and I shall set forth a plan that approximates the biblical process as closely as possible.
When the elders tell the congregation about a disciplinary case, they do so for a reason. The ever-widening lines in our diagram indicate that the number of persons who know about the problem increases with each step, thus bringing more and more persons into the arena of help. If a brother will not discipline himself, then another must take that task on himself. If the former won’t listen to the latter, then one or two others join in offering help. If the offender refuses to heed them, the church is officially informed and the elders (and, if necessary, all the the members of the congregation) confront him in a concerted attempt to bring about reconciliation and restoration.
If all this fails, he is removed from the midst of the church, and Satan and the world are providentially utilized by God to bring about repentance. (Of course, in the case of an unregenerate person such repentance will not be forthcoming unless he is subsequently regenerated.) Thus, in Christ’s plan for discipline an ever-increasing number of persons become involved in the helping process.
The reason why the congregation is told is so that as a whole they may have an opportunity to help the offending, willful brother or sister come to repentance.
What should the congregation be told about their duties to the brother who is undergoing official church discipline? Basically, in the Scriptures they are told three things:
1. That brother or sister so-and-so is under discipline for a particular problem. This is essential if they are to obey Paul’s command to “mark” the person (2 Thessalonians 3:14). The word used for “marking” is the word that means “to make or put a sign on him.” Paul is not suggesting that we pin a scarlet letter on the offender, but he certainly does mean “identify him to the entire congregation.” Apart from making this clear identification of the offender, the congregation could fulfill very few of their obligations to him. They could pray for an unknown offender, but they could not avoid fellowship and counsel with him.
The congregation does not need to be told the details of the offense, but it would seem that they must be told the nature of the problem if they are to confront and seek to counsel him in any meaningful way. Paul mentions the offense in 2 Thessalonians. The rule here is to say as little as necessary, but enough to enable the body to do its job. An example may be: “John is under discipline for failing to repent of his insistence that his wife should obtain an abortion.”2
2. The congregation may no longer fellowship with him as though nothing were wrong. They are told, “Don’t mix, or mingle, with him” (2 Thessalonians 3:14; 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11), “withdraw from him” (2 Thessalonians 3:6; the word translated “withdraw,” means “stand aloof; keep away from”), and “don’t eat” with him (1 Corinthians 5:11). All these commands (they are not good advice, but commands) say one and the same thing: the congregation must regard the so-called brother (1 Corinthians 5:11) “as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:15), but as one whose status is in question. (There is some doubt about whether he is really a brother,3 because he fails to heed the admonition of the brethren and the authority of Christ exercised by His officers in the church; by the time the entire congregation begins its task, he has gone very far in his willful disobedience and contumacy.)
But what does withdrawal mean? It means that if John calls Bill and suggests that they play a round of golf on Monday, Bill will reply by saying something like this: “John, there’s nothing I’d rather do. But there is a problem. You are under the discipline of the church and have not repented. I would be happy to spend that time with you on Monday talking about the problem instead.”4 Martha asks Jill to go shopping with her. Her reply is the same. “Not to eat” means two things: (1) that normal fellowship is broken. Eating with another, in biblical times, was the sign of fellowship; (2) that the offender is forbidden to partake of the Lord’s Supper because, according to 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, partaking is “communion” or fellowship, the very thing prohibited at stage 4.
This refusal of fellowship, leading to expulsion from the Lord’s Supper, is the point at which “excommunication” actually takes place. That is the literal meaning of the word. Nowhere in the Bible is excommunication (removal from the fellowship of the Lord’s Table) equated with what happens in step 5; rather, step 5 is called “removing from the midst, handing over to Satan,” and the like. But forbidding one to eat of the Lord’s Table takes place already in step 4. No more important violation of the command not to mingle and not to eat with the offender could be imagined than to partake of the Lord’s Supper with him. If he refuses to heed the officers and their admonitions, Paul says that he must be removed from table fellowship and all other forms of normal fellowship in order to “shame” him into repentance (2 Thessalonians 3:14).
3. They must “counsel” him (2 Thessalonians 3:15 Galatians 6:1-2). Laney’s book, having been, as I believe, wrong or confusing in many places, goes completely astray at stage 4. Laney advocates allowing the offender to partake of the Lord’s Table (p. 157), agrees with a pastor who “suggests that the names of offenders ought not be brought before the church” (p. 54), confuses “excommunication” with “removing from the midst” (pp. 55-56), and applies 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3 to stage 5 rather than to stage 4 of the disciplinary process. I must also confess to confusing “excommunication” with “removal from the midst” in previous writing; I now see that this is in error and have corrected it in this volume (see more on this in the next chapter). The other three errors are far more serious and, it followed, would totally defeat effective discipline at this stage in the process.
Discipline is not easy to do correctly or even to do at all. It involves courage and fortitude. It requires care and precision. It must be done in neither a sloppy nor a careless manner. Therefore the process must be carried on with the knowledge and assurance that what is being done is right in God’s sight. But even though discipline is difficult and runs many risks, churches dare not run the greater risk of withholding a privilege and blessing provided by Christ, thus depriving sinning members of all the help He has provided for them. Nor dare they disobey Him in refusing to follow His program for church discipline lest, in the end, they find themselves disciplined by Him (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:31-32).
1 Acts 15:6 shows how the apostles worked with elders. Cf. also 1 Peter 5:1, where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder.” Sometimes apostles functioned with apostolic authority; sometimes they functioned as elders only.
2 It is clear that persons are not disciplined, moved to the next step, or removed from the church because of particular sins, as Laney seems to think. (Laney is ambiguous about this important point; see his Guide to Church Discipline, pp. 45, 154-55.) They are disciplined tor their inability and/or unwillingness to give up those sins. They may repent at any time and remain members of the body without ever being removed from it or their cases being carried to a higher level. It is always refusal to listen—a contumacious attitude—that moves a case forward, even in the last instance, when removal is the sole remaining alternative. Any sin may occasion church discipline when it is not being dealt with by the offender.
3 This doubt is indicated by the words “so-called brother.”
4 Some wonder why one member’s sin is of concern to others. All are members of Christ’s body. When there is something wrong with the toe, that affects the entire body; the whole body is weakened by the sin of one member. The other members must do all possible to heal the ailing member or it will have to be amputated (step 5).