Church Discipline
I recently wrote my senior thesis, my last paper for college! The idea for this topic came from a class that I took on Paul's epistles last year. The issue of Church discipline was brought up in that class, and it was one of the first times that I have ever thought on or considered this topic. I realized that I had never seen it practiced and wondered what it might look like if a church made a practice of discipline (if and only when it is needed). So I am going to post a little bit of my paper each day as I have done in the past with previous papers. There was supposed to be some Greek in this paper, but it does not carry over to this blog, so I attempted to transliterate it, but probably did not do a great job of that. Just look over those parts of the paper. Here is part 1:
Introduction
One of the lost practices of the Christian Church is that of church discipline. Throughout the Church’s history, discipline has been instituted in many different ways, but since the twentieth century it appears as if the practice of discipline has been lost. The modern church tends to not institute church discipline, thus neglecting Jesus’ command to correct a brother who has fallen away. Jesus gave this command in Matthew 18, expecting His disciples and the future Church to conduct themselves in this manner. Paul appears to be enforcing this practice in 1 Corinthians 5, correcting the Corinthian church since it appeared that they might have been neglecting to discipline their members. History also shows how discipline was used and changed over the last two thousand years. In fact, J. Carl Laney traces its development from the time of Christ to the present day, showing how the modern church is really one of the first groups of Christians to neglect the practice of church discipline. The problem today, however, is knowing how to fulfill Jesus’ commands in the American society. For instance, if one member is forced out of one church, it is very easy for them to go a few miles down the road and begin attending another one. Furthermore, the Church is also plagued by the fear of possibly being sued if someone’s sin is revealed before the entire congregation. The problem the Church faces today is not only if church discipline should be instituted, but also how it should be carried out.
Discipline in Matthew 18
First, it is important to look at the formula which Jesus laid out in Matthew 18. The passage begins in verse fifteen with Jesus mentioning that this formula for discipline is used for ho adelphos sou, which means “your brother.” Donald A. Hagner points out that this means that discipline should happen within the community of disciples, which today would be the Church. Craig L. Blomberg further clarifies that such an instance does not involve a third party; instead, it should be a personal meeting between the concerned brother and the one who is caught up in the sin. Since these are the only two people who even know about the situation, it is better for it to be resolved between them without bringing in anyone else. In fact, Jesus takes it one step further in saying that it should be done alone (monou), which Hagner suggests means in private. Theoretically the problem would be resolved between them, and the next step of discipline would not be needed.
Jesus, however, knew that there would be cases in which this one-on-one meeting would not solve all of the problems. There would be those times in which a third party member would be needed to help resolve the conflict. It is important to understand that these one or two extra people do not have to be church officials. Their primary duty is to assist in being a witness that the situation is being handled properly as well as urging the person to seek repentance. Blomberg adds that the reason this step is added to the process “is to resolve [the] individual’s conflicts by involving as few people as possible.” Jesus had first clarified that the situation would best be resolved alone, between the two people. This would prevent others from knowing about the situation and spreading false information around. The conflict would be resolved, and repentance would be sought. By adding this step into the equation, more people know what has happened, but there is still a sense of privacy in that only a few people are involved. Finally, it is still closed off to the church at large and would hopefully be resolved by the end of this stage.
Jesus also knew that there would still be those rare exceptions where a person would not seek to fix the situation, and He commanded that only at that point should they be handed over to the church. Again, the point of this discipline is to fix a problem between two brothers, and that is best done in private, not before a large group of people. In extreme cases, however, this course of action must be taken. Therefore, Jesus offered the third step to this process in bringing it before the church. What is interesting about verse seventeen is that Jesus uses the word ekkleisia, which is translated as “Church.” This Greek word is the same one that is used throughout much of the New Testament when referring to the first century church. That specific organization of believers, however, had not yet been developed. So could Jesus be referring to what is known as the Church today? It appears as if He could have been. This passage makes it clear that those who confront this brother who has gone astray are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, those with whom they would have already been associated with. In essence, that is what Jesus intended for the Church to always be, a group of believers who care for and look out for one another, a group that cares for others in hard times, rejoices with them in times of joy, and rebukes them when sin has entered their lives. So although the Church itself had not yet been officially formed, it is quite possible that Jesus was referring to it even in Matthew 18.
Because of the close association that those who rebuke their brother and the one who was being rebuked would have, the separation was intended to be harsh. Jesus commanded the Church to cut the unrepentant brother off from the Church itself (or group of believers). If after these previous three steps, no course of repentance was sought, Jesus’ final command was to remove them from the fellowship. Once again, He did not intend for this to hurt the unrepentant brother as to drive him away from the Church forever; instead, it was intended to draw him back into the fellowship. In the first century there was not a church on every corner, and to kick someone out of the church left them with nowhere else to turn. They could not just hop over to the next church on the street and move their membership. The only other option left for them, if they did not want to repent and be brought back into the church was to join the Gentiles and tax collectors, those viewed as the lowest in Jewish culture. Therefore, by placing them in a group such as these, the intention was for them to see their sin and desire to be brought back into the church.
It is important to understand that when Jesus laid out this series of instructions, He did so out of love. The reason He commanded that only one person pull this brother aside in private was to not completely humiliate him in front of the entire congregation. If the two of them could work out the differences and move on, then there was no need for anyone else to ever know what happened. That situation would be left between the two of them and God. The only reason the next two steps were even mentioned were for the rare cases in which the sinful brother refused to repent and set things right. Jesus was serious about sin, and He did not want any of His children to stray and fall back into their old ways, but He was also loving, giving them that opportunity to ask for forgiveness.
Matt
No comments:
Post a Comment