So far I have been considering discipline within the local church that involves members of the same congregation. Now it is important to tackle the somewhat more complex questions of how to handle the problem of cross-congregational discipline.
Within the same denomination the ways and means for pursuing cross-congregational discipline are usually formalized in a denominational book of government and discipline. If they are not, you should work for a common Book of Discipline that provides for such measures.
What I wish to address in this chapter is the more difficult problem of how to carry on discipline among churches that are not related denominationally.
Bob and Phil, members of two Bible-believing congregations of different persuasions, have broken fellowship over a business deal. Phil, an automobile mechanic, maintains that all the work he did on Bob’s car was necessary and, though he charged Bob five hundred dollars, that was a good price for the labor and parts provided; indeed, below the going rate. Bob disagrees. He thinks that Phil did unnecessary work on the car and has stuck him with a huge bill, which he refuses to pay. Bob claims that he told Phil to let him know if the cost would exceed two hundred dollars; Phil says Bob gave no such instructions. Rather, Phil maintains that Bob said, “Go ahead and do whatever has to be done,” and indicated no reservations about the cost.
The matter cannot be resolved by going to court (1 Corinthians 6 forbids that).1 But since they cannot work it out between them, the matter must be settled by the church. Bob has told a number of people at his church what a rotten deal he got and how Phil cheated him. As a result, there is evidence that Phil’s business is suffering. Phil has not yet been paid.
Phil goes to his pastor for advice. The pastor says, “It seems to me that since Bob has made the matter public, it can be dealt with on that level. But why don’t you take a couple of mutual friends and try once more to work out matters? If you do not succeed, go to his pastor and seek help.”
One more visit is made. Phil and those with him get nowhere. Bob says he will not pay a cent more than two hundred dollars, and he refuses to discuss the issue further. Phil makes an appointment with Bob’s pastor, asking him to bring the matter officially before the church. The pastor in turn suggests that all four of them talk about it; he sets a date for the conference. But nothing comes of their meeting. Both men state and steadfastly maintain their positions. Bob tries to hand Phil a check for two hundred dollars and declares that the matter is over. He wants to hear no more about it. Phil shows the pastor receipts for parts that, apart from extensive labor costs, amount to nearly two hundred dollars in themselves. He refuses to take the check, declaring that to do so is to forfeit his right to a larger sum.
Where does the matter go from here? Regardless of how the issue turns out—which is not our concern at the moment—what steps should Phil take from here on?
Phil has two options. First, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:7 he can determine to accept the loss and drop the whole matter. If he does so, he must be sure he bears no resentment against Bob. In particular he must not speak disparagingly about Bob to others. If Phil drops it, it must be dropped entirely. (Incidentally, Phil had this option at earlier stages as well.)
But it would seem from his refusal to accept the check that Phil will want to pursue the matter further. Given his rejection of the first option, what is Phil’s second? He may pursue the matter officially before Bob’s church. He should inform the pastor that he is not satisfied to let the matter drop and settle for two hundred dollars, especially since he has lost five customers from Bob’s church because of what he can only call slanderous gossip on Bob’s part. His concern is that the church deal with his charges of theft and slander against Bob.
Before making charges of slander or gossiping, Phil must have evidence to substantiate them. This will consist not only of presenting the bills and receipts that he brought to the first conference, but also being able to call on witnesses to the slanderous statements made to others. If he can produce such evidence, he will be in a position to establish his case. Apart from evidence and witnesses, he should not proceed further (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:1).
All of the foregoing is rather simple and straightforward. But what if Bob’s church refuses to hear Phil? What if the pastor says, “Well, Phil, I’ve done all I can to reconcile the two of you. In our church we don’t do anything more; no, we will not discipline Bob.” This possibility is not at all unlikely today.
There is no direct biblical instruction about this matter because there was no denominational problem in the first century (although there were inter-church dealings such as the council described in Acts 15). But using the approach stipulated by the words of Christ in Matthew 18, it would seem that the following procedure should be followed:
1. Phil (perhaps with the guidance of his own pastor) should gently read Matthew 18:15ff. to Bob’s pastor and urge him and his church to follow the Scriptures in this matter. He should not simply go along with weakness on the part of Bob’s church. Rather, in a kind but firm manner, he should insist that, since they call themselves a Bible-believing church, they are bound to do what the Bible requires. Often this sort of kind but strong pressure will prevail.
2. If that action proves to be fruitless, then (on the basis of Matthew 18) he should take someone with him (preferably his own pastor) to confront Bob’s pastor. Frequently the matter will be settled at this level.
3. But suppose Bob’s pastor refuses to hear them. Then, on the analogy of Matthew 18, he should “tell it to the church.” That would probably mean having Phil’s elders request a meeting with the elders of Bob’s church. If this meeting occurs, Phil’s elders may be able to persuade Bob’s that this is the biblical thing to do and may be able to help them in conducting a fair trial. The issue in points 2 and 3, please note, is not Phil’s losses, but the question of whether Bob’s church will follow Matthew 18. The two issues should not be confused.
4. Let us suppose, as too often is true, that Bob’s elders refuse to meet or, after meeting, refuse to carry the case further. Then, short of Phil’s willingness at this point to drop the whole matter, his church would seem to have but one recourse: again, on the analogy of Matthew 18, Phil’s church should declare Bob’s church to be “as heathen and publicans.” That is to say, they should declare them to be “no church” since they will not draw a line between the world and the church by exercising discipline.2
This decision should never be taken unless the most careful and kind attempts have been made to try to effect proper discipline in the other church. But there must come a point at which the matter is set to rest. God will have no loose ends dangling in His church.
5. If Bob’s church is declared to be no church by Phil’s church, then and only then may Phil treat Bob “as a heathen and a tax collector.” If he wishes to do so, Phil may now take Bob to civil court. At times this may be an unwise move, a poor testimony in a community that doesn’t understand, and in some cases, even an unloving act if done in bitterness. But the practical possibility now exists. Sometimes it is wiser to drop the matter here (or earlier), and Phil always has that option.
6. If the act of declaring another church to be no church (because it will not define itself by church discipline) is to be carried out, it is important to keep accurate records, testimony, etc., of all that transpired. Moreover, before doing so, the other church should be warned of the possibility of this action.
Let me suggest two variations on this theme. Where a congregation is part of a denomination, the matter should be taken through the procedures prescribed by the denominational standards before taking the step of declaring it no church. In the case of a nondenominational congregation or one in which the denomination does not function in cases of church discipline, it might be advisable to call in one or two other congregations in the community to intercede; if nothing results from this, have those congregations agree also to declare the contumacious congregation to be no church.
There is another matter. Consider this scenario: Frank leaves his wife, Alice, for another woman. All efforts to bring about reconciliation fail. Frank is removed from the midst of his church. Sometime later he divorces Alice and marries the other woman. Several months after the remarriage, Frank decides to unite with another church down the street.
Frank’s former pastor calls up the pastor of the second congregation and tells him that Frank was removed from the church of Jesus Christ on proper grounds by church discipline. He says, “We would rejoice if Frank is repentant and if he wants to become a part of your church. We certainly won’t stand in his way. But first he has business over here. He must seek Alice’s forgiveness and the forgiveness of the congregation. Until then, he isn’t eligible tor membership in Christ’s church anywhere.”
If the second pastor responds biblically, Frank will be refused membership unless he repents and does works appropriate to repentance (at a bare minimum, that means settling matters with Alice and the former congregation). But, as in many situations, let us suppose that the second church receives him anyway. Then it would seem that on the analogy of Matthew 18, the two churches must become involved to the point of satisfaction or the unchurching of Frank’s new congregation by his former one.
Now, if proper procedures were in effect in the first place, such things would not happen. Whenever a stray sheep wanders into another fold, or whenever a person removed from the midst of one congregation seeks membership in another, he should be dealt with in a way that shows proper respect for the care and the discipline of the congregation to which he belongs. After all, it is difficult enough to get churches to exercise biblical discipline in the first place. How discouraging it is to find that it has been undercut by some other church down the block!
What am I talking about? Well, first let’s take up the question of the church hopper. There are times when a person should change churches, but he ought to do so for only the gravest reasons: a major change of doctrinal beliefs, apostasy on the part of the former church, or its failure to exercise discipline. Too many persons wander from church to church for superficial reasons. If the churches in a community were to draw up a procedure to deal with wandering Christians, far more wanderers would be reclaimed. It would resemble something like this interchange:
“Well, it was nice to see you in church Sunday.”
“Thank you, pastor, I appreciate your visit.”
“Are you new in town?”
“O no! We’ve lived here for about ten years.”
“Then perhaps you have just become Christians or are seeking to find out how to become Christians?”
“No, we’ve been members of the Hilltop Church since we moved here.”
“I see. Well, then you’ve recently had a change of belief, so you are looking for a church that is more compatible with your new beliefs?”
“No. We just got tired of going there. The people aren’t so nice, and I can just tell that we’re going to like it much better in your church. Why, your people were so friendly, and here you are already paying us a visit!”3
“Well, I’m certainly happy to hear of the friendly greeting you received, but there seems to be a problem. You know, Joe, your pastor is a Bible-believing man. He may not see everything exactly as we do here, but he is a true shepherd and you are one of his flock. If you don’t have a better reason for leaving that fold, you really belong there at Hilltop and not somewhere else. If you’ve had difficulty with some of the people there or with the pastor, I’d be happy to set up an appointment to meet together with them and see what we can do to bring about restoration.”
“Oh, I see! Well, thanks, but no thanks.”
“At any rate, I’ll let your pastor know we’ve had this talk.”
This wandering sheep will try another congregation. He should be met with a similar response at each place. It this were to become the practice, there would be far less wandering; church hoppers would be required to stay and face the problems they are trying to avoid.
In some places where I have spoken about this matter, pastors have drawn up a set of guidelines to follow. Why not talk to your local ministerium about it? Even if only two or three congregations go along with the procedure, it would be a marked improvement. Indeed, even if you can get no other church to go along but you make it a practice of returning straying sheep to other shepherds, you could do much by your example to gain respect for discipline among the congregations of your community.
Obviously, if the person has wandered from a liberal church, where the pastor is a wolf in shepherd’s clothing, you will do all you can to snatch him away from the clutches of that wolf. But you should always attempt to restore a sheep to a true shepherd. Besides, you get no bargain when a person leaves a church for the wrong reasons.
Consider this. I had just arrived as the new pastor of a congregation when I received a phone call from the pastor of a neighboring church. He asked,
“What can you tell me about Mr. and Mrs. So and So? I understand that they used to be members of your congregation. They’ve been attending here lately and want to join, but there seems to be something problematic about their past.”
I responded,
“I can tell you absolutely nothing. I just arrived; I hardly know my elders’ names. But I’ll try to find out.”
I called him back:
“I asked my elders, and they tell me that the So and Sos were disciplined by our church and removed from the midst.4 You’d better talk to them about it. If they are truly repentant we wouldn’t mind them uniting with your church, but they have unfinished business here first. We would be glad to restore them upon repentance and then, if they wish us to do so, send them by letter to your church.”
“Oh!” he said. “Thanks.”
I didn’t hear from the pastor again, but some months later I saw him at a pastors’ gathering. I asked about the So and Sos.
“Oh,” he said. “We took them in anyway, and they have just split our congregation. They took half a dozen families and went to start another church.”
Don’t expect anything but storms when you take a Jonah into your boat!
Let me say a word about schism. In Titus 3:10 Paul writes, “After counseling him once or twice, give up on a divisive person, and have nothing more to do with him.”
This is a vital direction. There should be provision to speed up the disciplinary process in cases of divisive persons, It you linger too long over the process, you may find your church divided. Paul is clear: if the divisive person does not cease his divisive ways after one or two confrontations, remove him.
In cross-congregational discipline, therefore, it is not enough to do what you can at your own church. It is essential, also, to hold other churches responsible to follow Christ’s directives. When another congregation refuses to follow the discipline that Christ provided for your member and you do nothing about it, it is not only that other congregation that is lax. If you fail to make every effort to get that congregation to satisfy Christ’s demands, you too are guilty, and the care of your own member is seriously lacking. If the other congregation refuses to listen to your biblical directives, then that congregation, no less than an individual believer, should be “removed from the midst.”
It is imperative that all these disciplinary steps be taken—and taken with the right attitude.
Where you have certain knowledge that a congregation denies the essentials of Christianity, you should not send persons back. Indeed, you should do all you can to get people out of such “churches.” Admittedly, many cases are borderline and not quite so clear. But in the case of a liberal church, it would seem, you have a clear obligation to pursue discipline.
In those instances in which the other congregation rightly responds by exercising discipline, you may be pleasantly surprised to discover brothers where you once wondered about them. In cases where a congregation refuses to pursue discipline on behalf of a member of your congregation and you must declare them to be “no church,” the discipline issue itself is what allows you to make that statement. Either way, discipline helps sharpen the focus of an otherwise fuzzy situation.
All intercongregational discipline must be carried on with the utmost care. Special care must be taken so as not to “take sides” with members of your own congregation but, instead, to make impartial judgments based on the facts.
In cases where you disagree with the judgment of another congregation, you may have to act according to your conscience in ways that differ from that judgment—but only after it has been made perfectly clear that you appreciate that they have rendered judgment. Your reasons for departing from their judgment should be given; and just as when brothers are separated by other differences which grow out of divergent interpretations and applications of the Scriptures, you must continue to recognize the other congregation as a true church of Christ.
This is very different from declaring a church to be no church. In almost every instance, the judgment of the disciplining church should be accepted. Only in cases where the judgment involved matters of conscience should it be disregarded.
1 God forbids believers to take other believers to court.
2 Even if Phil should wish to drop his matter against Bob, the other issue—the dealings between the two churches—should be pursued to its end. A church, declared to be no church, may be restored upon repentance.
3 How many pastors and elders are taken in by such flattery!
4 Actually, at that point I was still using the word “excommunicated.”