Does The Scriptures teach Social Disfellowship
of disciplined Church Members?
Intro: Most
Christians today know nothing about church discipline as it is a subject that
most churches avoid altogether. In the minds of most professing Christians “church
discipline” is something too harsh to even consider in today’s Christian
climate. Hence, it is even more difficult to consider how church members should
treat those under church discipline as the doctrine of church discipline is
either completely avoided or misunderstood by the vast majority of professing
Christians. This article is written to
those who at least accept the practice of Church discipline as a Biblical
doctrine and practice. The response of church members toward the disciplined
used to be called “shunning” by early Christians. The term “shun” simply means
to “avoid.” Does the Bible teach that
church members are to “avoid” those disciplined in their social affairs of
life? This is the question that will be
considered in this article.
I. The Decisive Text -
Matthew 18:15-18
15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy
brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one
or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established.
17 And if he shall
neglect to hear them, tell it unto
the church: but if he neglect to hear
the church, let him be unto thee
as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto
you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever
ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This is the only passage that Jesus deals directly
with problem church members and what to do with them. Take note that no
specific sin is referred to such as adultery, stealing or etc. The repeated offense is that this person will
“NOT HEAR.” In other words, whatever
this person has done, this person remains obstinate in this sin in spite of
confrontation and rebuke by a threefold process (“hear THEE” “hear THEM”
“hear THE CHURCH”). This is a person who will
not be corrected nor will he repent when corrected.
This is the primary sin that is found as
the basis of church discipline throughout the rest of the Scriptures. In 2
Thessalonians 3:6 a member is to be withdrawn from if that member “walketh disorderly.”
The tense of the Greek behind these words demands that this is an
ongoing continuous thing rather than a single instance (walketh
– matter of habit). The term “disorderly”
represents a Greek military term and would suggest that this person is one who
consistently walks out of step with the rest of the church – a persistent
stubborn person who marches to the beat of his own drum and defies the whole
church by their action(s). In Titus
At the very least, Matthew 18:15-18 refers
to a person who will not suffer to be corrected by the majority of the church.
Jesus commands the Church to take some sort of action toward such a member.
What kind of action is the church to take toward such a member?
II. Let Him be unto
THEE
Jesus first addresses the individual member that has
been offended by this defiant member. The word “thee” is singular and refers in
context the one mentioned in verse 15 who was initially offended. This offended
person has obeyed everything the Lord has instructed. This person has gone
privately and tried to be reconciled with the offender. This person has gone a
second time with two or three witnesses in order to be reconciled (v. 16). This
person along with his two or three witnesses has taken this problem before the
whole church and the church has confronted the offender but with no better
response from the offender. Hence, Jesus
first addresses the offended member and tells him how that offended member
should react to that offender from this point on until the offender repents.
“Let him be unto THEE as a heathen man
and a publican”
What would such a command mean to a
Christian Jew at the time of Christ?
Would it simply mean to regard the offender as a “lost” person? Some believe this is all it means. Some
believe Jesus is just referring to a change of mental disposition toward the
offender – regard the offender as lost from this point on.
However, will this view point stand up to
the rest of Scriptures that deal with the subject of dealing with defiant
members? For example, how would this
view stand up to the fact that Paul forbids church members to view such a
defiant member as an “enemy” but rather they are to regard him as a “brother”
(2 Thes. 3:15)???????
How could they regard him as a “brother” if Jesus is instructing them to
count him as a “lost” person??????
“Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
Moreover, does the New Testament provide
examples of what it means to treat someone as a heathen man? There are two clear examples in scripture
that define what it means to treat someone as a “heathen” or Gentile:
“For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” – Gal. 2:12-13
The above passage provides a clear
understanding of how the orthodox Jew was to regard the heathen or gentile
during New Testament times. They were not to “eat” socially with such persons
but they were to “withdraw” from them and SEPARATE themselves from such. The
context would imply that Peter had gone to the homes of some gentile members to
fellowship and socialize. Significantly
this same term (“withdraw”) is used in Romans
“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation...” – Acts 10
God had to show Peter a vision three times and then
personally rebuke him in order to get Peter just to enter the home of a gentile
much less socialize with them. These two examples clearly show that it was
UNLAWFUL for orthodox Jews to socialize with the heathen. Publicans were
considered a step lower than heathen by the orthodox Jew because they were Jews
who worked for heathens in order to take money from the Jews.
These two New Testament illustrations are
fully supported by all known customs among the Jews during New Testament
times. Jesus is clearly instructed the
offended person to completely “avoid” the offender and have no social fellowship
with the offender whatsoever. Furthermore, this is the only reasonable and
rational interpretation. If after all reasonable attempts to correct a problem with
a person but that person keeps on insulting you, or
striking you with their fist or mouth, how reasonable would it be for you to
enter into any kind of personal fellowship with them? Wouldn’t avoiding them send a message?
Moreover, this is a practice that you observe
quite often. How do you respond to a
person that insults you??? Do you socialize
with them or do you withdraw from them and separate yourself until they act
better??? Be honest now!! You may do it out of anger but the Lord
commands the church that this to be done for restorative reasons – “that they
may be ashamed”
II. Verily I say unto
You
After instructing the offended person how
to respond to the offender, the Lord turns now to the rest of the church. The
word “you” is found in the plural and is addressed to the church as the holder
of the “keys.”
If you want to understand this verse you
should ask yourself “why does the Lord address the church in this manner at
this particular point in his discussion about church discipline?” or “If the
Lord instructs the offended one to respond this way to the offender how would
the rest of the church respond then?”
The meaning of the “keys” is universally
understood by scholars to refer to “authority”.
The term “bind” refers to making something valid and obligatory. The term “loose” refers to releasing someone
from an obligation or invalidating something. Ask yourself, what is it at this point that
the church is to use authority to bind or loose? What is the church to make obligatory or
invalid at this point in this discussion on church discipline?????
I believe that the only common sense
application at this point in the discussion is that the Lord is directly the
church to commit itself to authoritatively support the offended member. What
would that mean in a practical sense? It
would mean they are to bind the Lord’s instructions to the offended member upon
the whole church and unitedly take the same stand
against the offender.
Consider the logical and practical results if this is not the true application? The Lord would be directing one member to
regard and treat the offender one way while allowing for other church members
to buddy up with that offender! This would cause more friction and division
within the church. Suppose some members chose to buddy up with the offender??
Would not such an action not only isolate the offended member from the offender
but also from those who sided with the offender causing further offense?
The Lord is instructing the church to take
sides with the offended member and act in unity toward the offender refusing to
have anything to do with that offender until true repentance occurs and
restoration between the offended member and the offender.
III. Shun the
Disciplined Member
The term “shun” simply means to avoid and
separate yourself from someone. This is exactly what
the New Testament repeatedly teaches in regard to those placed under church
discipline.
“withdraw yourselves”
– 2 Thes. 3:6
“have no company
with” – I Cor.
“with one no not to
eat” – 2 Thes.
“withdraw from” –
Rom.
“reject” – Tit. 3:10
“let
him be unto thee as a heathen man and publican” – Mt.
The New Testament clearly teaches this
and that should be enough to settle the question. However, does
the Scriptures provide any logical and convincing reasons why the church is to “shun”
disciplined members? Yes, it gives
several good and valid reasons:
A. “A little leaven leaventh
the whole lump” – I Cor. 5; Gal. 5: A person who
stubbornly persists in an error and is incapable of being corrected or rebuked
is a leader in that sin. One rotten
apple ruins the whole barrel is a contemporary quotation of this Biblical
statement. Church discipline makes no sense and serves no practical purpose in
regard to THE INFLUENCE of obstinate rebellious members if it does not separate
that member from the rest of the membership.
Most denominations that practice church
discipline regard it as only a separation from voting and active participation
in church things. If this were the only case, then we are talking only about
the public assembly which gathers twice a week or on special occasions.
Ask yourself this question. If a homosexual
was forbidden only to participate with your children during public services
four or fives hours a week but was permitted to personally fellowship with them
the rest of the week, which area would the homosexual have more influence and
impact??????
Ask yourself if a heretic was forbidden
only to participate with church members during public services but was
permitted to influence them personally throughout the rest of the week which
would be the greater period of influence?
Remember Christ is concerned about the
INFLUENCE of this disciplined member on the rest of the membership!!! Church
discipline refers to the attitude of rebellion, resistance, defiance rather
than to a specific sin or false doctrine. It is the attitude that leavens
others regardless if the sin is homosexuality or deviant doctrine. The whole
idea of “leaven” is that it must be entirely separated from the rest of the
dough if its influence is to be arrested and stopped. Why? “Because
a LITTLE leaven leaventh the WHOLE lump” if left in
any kind of contact.
Members who choose to fellowship with
disciplined members are taking fire to their bosom and will get burnt. However, more importantly is that the
influence of that disciplined member not only remains within the membership
through members who choose to fellowship with them but they too will eventually
be leavened by the same leaven and thus return the same problem back into the
membership until the membership is converted to the sinner or is dissolved by
church discipline.
B. That they may be ashamed – 2 Thes.
Nothing is so effective as to “shame” a
person as to avoid them socially. In fact, this is what people do naturally
when someone offends them. When a person offends you, you naturally withdraw
and avoid them. Why? So they might get
the point that you are not pleased with them. It is strange that church members
practice this kind of separation all the time with those that offend them in
all other areas of their lives but when it comes to the church, all of a sudden
this kind of treatment becomes barbaric in their eyes????
C. The Example of Christ in Church Discipline – I Cor. 5:5: Does Jesus separate himself from the
offended one only during church services or in all areas? Paul says that church discipline is turning
over such a person to Satan for the destruction of the fleshly influence over
them (I Cor. 5:5).
Does this turning over to Satan refer only to their church life or to
their social life as well??? Does Christ
administer discipline only within the four walls of the church or does He
administer it in all areas of their lives????
If Christ breaks off all areas of fellowship with the disciplined
(turning them over to Satan) then how is it so unchristlike
to follow His example?? Why should we
fellowship with one whom Christ will not????
If they are turned over to Satan would not that be a good enough reason
to break fellowship with such a one unless we too want to enter into Satan’s
domain of influence?
IV. How Should our Attitude be toward the Disciplined Member?
“And if any man obey not our
word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may
be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” – 2 Thes. 3:14-15
Although we are to have “no company with
him” yet we are not to “count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother”. Are these contradictory statements? No! The
first refers to our responsibility. We are to “avoid” socializing with him on
our part. However, when we happen to meet that person in the public or at
church we are not to treat him as an enemy. We are not to just turn and walk
away not speaking a word nor should we speak harshly and unkindly to them. There
is never an excuse to treat another person contemptuously or with a better than
thou attitude.
However, on the other hand, we are not to
overstep the line and enter into any kind of social fellowship either. The
balance is “tough love” but love. If that person uses that opportunity to
pursue social fellowship with us we are to remind them why we cannot – “but
admonish him” and use that opportunity to point him back to repentance and tell
him we are praying for him and that he is always welcome to come to church and
sit under the Word if he can do so decently and in order.
What about family members under church
discipline. Does the rule of complete social separation apply to them? We are not left without clear instruction in
this area. When Paul commands Christians to be not “unequally yoked” with
unbelievers but to come out from among them and be SEPARATE from them (2 Cor. 6) he makes the family unit the exception to this rule
of separation. Why? Because
obedience in this situation would destroy the family unit and cause
disobedience to other commandments of the Lord in regard to the family.
Paul specifically instructs the saved member of a family to remain with that
family for the sake of the lost spouse and for the sake of the children.
However, even within that area of exception
there is no easy going. The saved members of that family will suffer
consequences of such a union. So likewise, with the member of the church who
coexists in the family structure with those who are placed under church
discipline. Obviously, there must be lines drawn by the member in good standing
in dealing with those under discipline in the family unit. They cannot say or
do anything that would give support to that disciplined family member and if it
comes down to choosing them or Christ then Paul makes it very clear that if
such a person leaves you due to that choice then you are no longer bound to
that family member. Coexisting with lost family members or disciplined family
members (who act lost) is no easy road and the church needs to support members
in that situation more intently than those not in that situation as the
temptations and problems are much increased.
The attitude of church members toward the
disciplined is one that seeks reconciliation according to the Scriptural
guidelines. Kindness with tough love.