In what way ought Christian discipline to be carried out?
Having spoken already as to the way of carrying out Christian discipline in its two first aspects, we now only have to consider the way and manner, in which church discipline is to be effected.
First of all we shall do well to remember that the way of transacting church discipline is closely connected with the spirit in which it ought to be practiced, on which I have dwelt in the preceding paper. For if in the exercise of church discipline the Spirit of grace and truth is active within us, that divine Guide, dwelling in us, being ungrieved, will not fail to guide in the way and manner of carrying it into effect. Only let us ever be mindful that this blessed Spirit of truth can and will never prompt us to act without, let alone contrary to, the word indited by Himself, which is truth.
And what is it especially, that we find expressed so distinctly and decidedly in the word of God as to the way of carrying church discipline into effect? Is it not the common responsibility of the members of Christ before Him our Head in glory, as well as their mutual responsibility, as to any unjudged God-dishonoring sin, defiling the assembly as such? Let us take again the case at Corinth. That church had sunk to such a low spiritual condition, that they had become unmindful of their responsibility to “purge out the old leaven.”
How did the apostle proceed in that, humanly speaking, desperate case? Did he hold a private conference with Titus, Timothy, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus and a few others of his fellow-laborers, in order to come to a conclusion and decision in this matter? Did he say to them: The condition of the church at Corinth is so bad and spiritually so low, the spiritual life so feeble, the flesh so strong and prevalent, and the consciences so sleepy and inert, that there remains nothing but to take matters into our own hands, and to decide instead of them to put away that wicked person from the assembly? Does he send Titus or Timothy or Stephanas to Corinth with a message to the assembly, that he as an apostle, or, let us say, he and the other brothers with him had resolved to take the necessary church discipline into their own hands, and, carrying it out for them, had put away that wicked person from amongst them?
What would have been the effect of such an action? Why, the church at Corinth, had it “bowed” to such a resolution, and, acting upon it, had considered that wicked person as having been put away from among them, would have acted in the fear of the apostle and of the brethren with him, instead of under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in the fear of the Lord. The consciences and hearts of the Corinthians would not have been exercised before God in His holy and gracious presence as to the evil they had allowed in their midst. In getting rid of one evil, they would only have opened the door to another evil, thus exchanging one “leaven” for another.
But what did the apostle? In his character and authority as such he indeed did say, “For verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
But first of all the apostle says (ver. 4), “When ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Whilst speaking as an apostle, he entirely identifies himself with the church at Corinth simply as a member of the body of Christ, by saying, “When ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ” (not “with my apostolic power”). He seeks to bring the consciences of the Corinthians into the presence of Christ instead of into his own apostolic presence, so that they might. act “in the fear of Christ,” and not in the fear of the apostle, i.e. in the fear of men. Whilst, in virtue of his apostolic authority, delivering that wicked person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (Job 2:6-76And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. 7So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. (Job 2:6‑7)), he at the same time takes care to remind the Corinthians of their own responsibility for acting themselves in carrying out the church discipline, for he continues, “Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth.” He does not say, “We have excluded from among you that person, and all you have to do is to notify this to the assembly,” but, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”
True, the same apostle writes to the Hebrews, “Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” We also do well to remember that the apostle writes to the Corinthians at the close of the same Epistle, “I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.”
God forbid that any should say or write anything that would tend to weaken or undermine the spiritual authority of rulers, pastors, teachers or overseers given by the Lord Himself, and to incite or foster in the churches a spirit of disregard and opposition against any true spiritual authority, appointed by God. Such a spirit is not from above but from beneath, as we learn from the Epistle of Jude, by where we are warned against two evil extremes. The one is that of “having men's persons in admiration because of advantage,” and the other that of “despising dominion and speaking evil of dignities.” Each of the two is a great sin, but whilst the former is innate in human nature (though none the less sinful and hateful), the latter is directly devilish and abominable.
But when those who have been looked up to, as leaders, have become so unmindful of their responsibility to the Lord and of their obligation to the church of God, accruing from the position they had held there, as to have attempted, especially in cases of church discipline, to lead the consciences of the saints practically away from Christ under their own superintendence and authority, they are no longer to be regarded nor treated as “leaders” but as “misleaders” or “seducers.”
Only a few years ago the writer of these lines stayed some time as a visitor in a certain district (not of Great Britain), where there were numerous gatherings consisting of those who professedly avowed, held, and taught the simple truths of the church of God as presented in the scriptures. Amongst them it had become a usual practice, that by a certain gathering in a large town (the “Jerusalem” as it were, for all the gatherings in the land, at least for as many as were willing to own such an allegiance and there were hardly any who dared to disown it),—cases of church discipline were taken in hand and carried out, not only for neighboring but for distant gatherings likewise. Daring their Saturday night's private sittings at a private house some “ruling brethren,” as they were called settled among themselves any case of church discipline that had arisen in the gathering at that metropolitan center. Their decision was then made known on the Lord's day morning to the church as an accomplished fact which admitted of no contradiction. But those “ruling brothers” did not confine their activity to cases of church discipline in the gathering to which they belonged. They also took up questions of church discipline that had arised in neighboring, and even in distant gatherings, and then sent one or two delegates to the gathering in question, in order to notify to that meeting on the next Lord's day as an accomplished fact that such or such a brother or sister had put away from among themselves by the brethren at “Jerusalem.” On one of those occasions it even occurred that a brother, who protested against such a procedure, was also put away because of “insubordination.”
Where is the fear of God in such proceedings? Where is the word of God to justify it? What becomes of the guidance of the Holy Ghost in the assembly? What of the due respect to the consciences of the saints?
There may be questions of church discipline, as for instance in cases of immorality, dishonesty and evil doctrine where true wisdom, love and godly care for the flock of Christ would equally forbid to make the whole of an assembly, young and old, acquainted with all the details of such gross sins. Such a procedure would not only not be helpful to the spiritual condition of the saints, especially the young, but only too often the very, opposite. One can hardly imagine anything more injurious to the spiritual life, progress and growth of an assembly, than such a procedure. The same it would be in cases of evil doctrines, where the soul-poisoning influence would often prove more disastrous still.
In cases like these it appears not only advisable but indispensable for the spiritual welfare of an assembly, that some elder brothers of spiritual weight and intelligence, should take up cases of discipline referred to above and sift the whole before it is put to the assembly for decision. In this way the consciences of the saints forming the assembly are properly exercised before God, without their hearts having been defiled by being occupied with the specialties of the leaven that had to be purged out. The assembly having then decided as to the necessity of exclusion, it is made known on the first day of the following week.
This way of carrying into effect the solemn act of discipline is according to God and His word, and very different from the above mentioned ungodly ways of procedure. In the former case, where a few “ruling brothers” take upon themselves the discipline to be exercised by the assembly, the consciences of the saints are left without exercise before God and put under human authority instead. In the latter of those two mischievous procedures, that is where the whole meeting, young and old, are made acquainted and, so to speak, familiar with details of the defiling leaven in all kinds of disgraceful cases, there is but too great a danger for the hearts, especially of the tender lambs of the flock, getting familiarized with evil and consequently callous or indifferent if not actually poisoned by it. It is difficult to say, which of the two would be the I worst: the hardening of the conscience from want of exercise before God; or the defiling and poisoning of the heart from too much of exercise and details demanding discipline.
May the God of all grace, through the Spirit of truth, power, love and of a sound mind, guide and bless us with that wisdom which is from above, in order that we may be filled “with fruit of righteousness unto the day of Christ,” and not be ashamed away at His coming.
Finally I would remark that there are two cases where a saint's personal withdrawal from a meeting would be not only justified, but imperative. The first is that of an assembly obstinately refusing to exclude such are guilty of unrighteousness and immorality. The second is that of a gathering remaining in fellowship with such are guilty of heresy and heterodoxy (evil doctrine). For discipline being one of the essential characteristics of the church, as the “house of the living God,” a gathering which refuses that discipline, ceases to be an assembly in the sense of the word of God, by willingly harboring the evil and refusing to judge it and put it away. Only every scriptural effort is due in warning and entreaty before such an extreme step can be lawfully taken.
As to the godly obligation for every believer of absolute separation in cases of heresy and heterodoxy, this has become, especially in these “perilous times” and “last days,” a subject of such paramount importance, that, before closing these remarks on Christian discipline, I purpose to offer D.V. in my next paper a few distinct remarks on this subject.