Let us now consider the different kinds of Christian discipline. There are three:
2. The discipline of fatherly watchfulness and pastoral care. (Gal. 6:11Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1), Acts 20:28-3128Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28‑31), 1 Thess. 2:11-12, 111As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:11‑12)
1For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you, that it was not in vain: (1 Thessalonians 2:1) Tim. 5:19-21.)
3. The discipline of Christ, as Son over His own House. (Heb. 3, John 13)
The two first have a personal character. Their intention is to prevent church discipline.
1.-A BROTHER SINNING AGAINST A BROTHER.
As to this case, our Lord's instructions are clear and simple: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 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. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
In these words of our gracious Master we cannot fail at once to notice the especial care he takes to remind us, that this is not a case for church discipline, but of personal wrong of one brother against another, warning us against confounding the two, which has caused great sorrow and mischief in the church. It has always been Satan's endeavor (in which the flesh in us is but too willing to aid him), to degrade church questions to personal questions, or dignify personal matters into church questions, thus using our natural pride to produce the canker of party spirit in the church of God. The history of the church from the days of the Apostles until now contains the sad confirmation of this.
“ If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” What did our meek and lowly Master intend by these words? Simply this, that the brother who has been wronged, should go to his brother in the spirit of that love which “covereth a multitude of sins,” and with the intention that the sin of his brother might not only be covered, i. e., remain a secret to everyone else, but confessed and judged as in God's presence, be thus entirely put away, between God and the brother who had sinned, and between the two brothers themselves, after the manner of our loving and gracious God, Whose “imitators” we are to be. He “giveth freely and upbraideth not” (James 1:55If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5)), and He forgiveth freely and upbraideth not, saying: “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb. 10:1717And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 10:17)). The latter is far more difficult to us than the giving and not upbraiding. The intention is that the sin of the brother should be kept a secret, nay, entirely put away, before it can reach the ears of a third person, let alone the church. But if the brother will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two. One witness in the sense of love and grace, but two in the sense of wisdom, according to the individual character of the erring brother and the more or less hopeful result of your first private interview with him. In the latter case two witnesses would be more likely to impress the conscience of the failing brother, and in certain cases it would be wise, not to appear before the church as witness in your own cause, in case the matter has to be brought before the church.
But if the erring one will not listen to the church. (or assembly), what then? He has hardened his heart against the tearful entreaties and remonstrances of the brother wronged by him; the united testimony of two additional witnesses has proved without effect upon his conscience; even the exhortation of the assembly has been left unheeded—what remains, some would say, but the painful necessity of church discipline? Ought he not to be Put away?
No! says the Son over His own house, Who is holier, wiser and more gracious than we all; “if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee” (that is to the one whom he has sinned against) “as an heathen man and a publican.” He, the Head of His body, the church, as He is our personal Lord and Master and Savior, will not permit us to dignify personal matters into church questions, nor to lower church questions into personal matters.
Let us heed this warning injunction of our Good, Great and Chief Shepherd! What sorrow, grief, distress and havoc might have been spared to the precious sheep and tender lambs of His flock, if His under-shepherds, like good sheep, had listened to His voice and heeded his distinct instruction! May He grant us to be “strong in the grace that is in Him” (2 Tim. 2:11Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 2:1)), and to “be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col. 1:99For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; (Colossians 1:9)).
It may and does happen that such an impenitent brother, hardened and persevering in a willful evil course, may become finally subjected to church discipline, and be excluded from the assembly. But this is quite a different thing. Such a sad extremity is not prevented by going before the Lord and beyond His word, but by waiting upon Him and following His word.
Another case of Christian (though not church) discipline is that of a brother “walking disorderly,” that is, as the apostle explains, “working not at all, but being a busybody” (2 Thess. 3:6-166Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. 10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. 14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 16Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all. (2 Thessalonians 3:6‑16)). The apostle here commands with the solemnity of apostolic authority (as in 1 Cor. 5) in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, “withdraw from such an one.” The reason of his solemn language in this case is, because idleness, so sharply rebuked throughout the pages of holy writ, and even by the world, opens the door to the tempter, as testified by David's warning example. But this is after all not a case for putting away or church discipline as in 1 Cor. 5, but of discipline to be enacted by the brethren individually against the idle and mischievous one, by withdrawing from all personal communion with him. The intention of this kind of Christian discipline is, to act by the force of such a united testimony upon the heart and conscience of the one who “walketh disorderly,” and thus to prevent his expulsion from the assembly. The apostle then continues, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle” not—"put away,” but, “note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed,” that is, that he may see his evil way and forsake it, and thus be spared the final, that is, church discipline, which might become necessary by some of the serious fruits of his idleness. For this reason the apostle concludes with the gracious words, “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” His language in this case is very different from that in 1 Cor. 5
As to the case in Matt. 18 I would offer a few remarks about a mistake (to speak gently) of by no means rare occurrence—I mean the case of a brother abstaining from breaking bread, either because he thinks himself insulted or wronged by somebody in the assembly, or, what is worse still, he entertains a personal dislike or suspicion against that person. If acting thus from the first mentioned reason, he constitutes himself accuser and judge in his own cause, thus proving how little he has learned, to know and judge himself (his pride and self-will and their blinding power misleading him to such presumption) and how little he has realized in his soul the true character of the church as the body of Christ. And not only so, but by excluding himself, for the sake of his ill-favored brother, from the Lord's table, he withholds from the Lord not only the tribute of worship in adoration and thanksgiving due to Him at the memorial of his love, but robs himself of all the precious blessing connected with the Lord's table. To be avenged of his face he cuts off his nose. What folly, not to speak of the sad condition of soul that causes it.
“ But,” some will say, “is it not worse to sit down at the Lord's table, which is the expression of Christian fellowship, with a brother who has wronged me, or against whom I have something on my heart, or have reason for suspicion? “
My answer to such is simply this, that in divine matters the word of God and not natural feelings and principles ought to be the rule for our actions. In none of these cases does scripture warrant such a step of independence. To such I should say, If you think your brother has wronged you, why not, after acting according to Matt. 18, “let him be to thee [not to you] as a heathen man and a publican?” That is, you may refuse to him the right hand of fellowship, not noticing any longer. his presence in the assembly. Not a word is said that he should be excluded from the assembly, much less of your placing yourself under discipline instead of him.
In the second case, that is, where you have anything in your heart against a brother, why do you not act upon the Lord's clear injunction in Matt. 5:23, 2423Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. (Matthew 5:23‑24), and go to your brother, in order to rid your heart of what you have against him? In the passage just referred to, the Lord enjoins us to go to our brother, not only when we have something against him, but “if thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee: leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Certainly then ought you to go to him, if you have anything against him, and be reconciled to him. But instead of this you turn your back upon the altar and stay away with your gift of thanks due to God. What, blindness in thus sinning against God and against your brother!
In the third case, that is, staying away from the Lord's table because you think you have cause for suspicion against a brother, either having noticed something wrong in his walk, or having heard some evil report about him, your way of acting appears to be still more perverse and sinful. For either the bad thing you have noticed in his walk or have heard about him is of such a nature as to make him liable to church discipline, that is, to cause his exclusion from the assembly, or it is of a less urgent and solemn nature. In the former case it is your bounden duty to acquaint the church with his evil course, if proved, and known to you as a fact, in order that the evil may be put away from among them. Instead of this, either from the fear of men, or from natural motives of human love, friendships or family relationships, you excommunicate yourself from the table and the church, permitting both to be defiled, and imagining in this way to pacify your conscience and keep it pure! What defilement! What cowardice! What grievous sin against God, against Christ, and the church!
If, on the other hand, the inconsistency you have noticed in a brother's walk is not of so serious a nature as to cause his exclusion from, or even a public rebuke before the church, why in due love to your brother do you not go to him and try to remove the defilement you noticed by washing his feet according to our blessed Lord and Master's own example and solemn injunction? (John 13:1414If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. (John 13:14). Of this I shall speak further on.)
Do you suspect your brother? “Charity thinketh no evil.” Do you distrust him? “Charity believeth all things, hopeth all things” (1 Cor. 13). Or is your diffidence founded on information by some trusty brother? Ask him whether he has spoken to the brother against whom he has supplied you with that damaging information, and if he has not, offer to accompany him at once to the one against whose godly character he has raised doubts in your mind If he refuses to do so, rebuke him sharply, and at once dismiss from your mind any further suspicious thought against the suspected one, for you have no right to entertain even the shadow of a suspicion against a fellow-believer, unless founded on undeniable facts and trustworthy witnesses. To utter or spread such evil surmisings or even only disparaging expressions about a fellow-believer, which may be done sometimes in an apparently innocent, half jocular way, is not only base and ungodly but really devilish. In many gatherings all true fellowship, peace, and blessing have been paralyzed and disturbed, the “accuser of the brethren” having succeeded in impregnating the spiritual atmosphere in such assemblies with vague suspicious distrust, evil surmisings, and indistinct misgivings to such a degree that the spiritual breathing in such a thick and poisonous atmosphere became almost impossible, and terminated in the breaking up of the gathering.
To stay away from the Lord's table from mere suspicion or distrust against one or some in the assembly only betrays that the surmised evil, from which such a separatist pretends to purge himself by his own exclusion is enclosed within himself. He therefore had better begin with himself, instead of sitting in judgment upon his brother and upon the assembly by separating from them. Such a pharisaic pride under the cloak of conscientiousness is most sad in a Christian, proving the subtlety and blinding power of the flesh in us.
Let me sum up what has been said, in a simple illustration. Suppose one of the children of a family fancies he has ground for complaint against one of his brothers, or entertains from some cause or another a great aversion to him. His feeling grows so strong that he determines to absent himself from the common family meals. By his absence from that table, which in itself is the expression of the family tie and union, he would not only put a slight upon his brothers and sisters usually present at the table, but above all commit a flagrant disregard of his parents who preside at that table. Besides, that not very amiable son, in order to show his dislike or disapproval of his brother, would expose himself to starvation, a suicidal procedure, which would little serve his purpose. For one would scarcely suppose that that separatist member of the family, who thus spurns the parental table, would go so far in his boldness as to expect his meals to be sent after him into his cell (as little as the self-willed member of Christ, separating himself from the Lord's table, could expect God's blessings connected with the table to follow him into his self-chosen exile). Suppose now that peculiar and unsociable son, on being remonstrated with by his father for his conduct, should plead that the parental table being the expression of family communion, it would not be consistent and honest of him to sit down there with a member of the family with whom he felt he could have no communion. What would the father say to such an excuse? He would say to him, “If your brother has offended or wronged you, why have you not gone to him, seeking to convince him of his error in the spirit of meekness and brotherly love? And if he would not listen to you nor to his brothers and sisters, you should have told me, and I would have admonished, and if necessary reproved and corrected him. Instead of pursuing this only proper course, you, my son, have preferred to take the matter into your own hands and constituted yourself accuser and judge in your own cause. Your way of acting does not appear to me a conscientious one, as you wish to present it, but rather it betrays an evil heart and a perverse conscience, pride, and self-will. The table, on which you have turned your back, is not yours, nor your brother's, but my table. If you continue to spurn the family table and thus disregard both your parents and your brothers and your sisters, there remains nothing for you but to leave the house and go to the world's boardinghouse and taste their fare.”
I have dwelt on this point longer than I intended, on account of its frequent occurrence, especially in small towns and country gatherings, where personal acquaintance is so much closer, and so more liable to friction.
“ The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”