Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

The answer you get to the above question depends on who you ask! The Universalist will tell you: “Everyone is going to be saved, because God is too good to let anyone be lost.” The Calvinist will say: “If you are predestinated to be saved, you will be, so just wait for the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.” The “faith only” advocate says: “Pray the sinner’s prayer and accept Christ into your heart as personal Savior.” In this article we will not review these incorrect answers, but the truth that will be presented will show that they are wrong.

First, let us notice that the question itself implies that there are two parties involved in salvation. The first half, “what must I do?”, shows that there is something the individual must do. The second half, “to be saved,” shows God’s part. It is not “what must I do to save myself?” but “to be saved. ” We are saved by God’s grace. “For the grace of God had appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Tit. 2:11) God is not “slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). He has revealed the gospel which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1: 16). We know that God has done His part. This article is to discuss what “I” must do to receive the pardon provided by God, through Christ.

Second, we must point out that the answer to the question is not found in one verse. As with all subjects, we must take everything the Bible says on the subject in order to have the truth. Those who take one verse (such as John 3:16) and conclude that nothing else is necessary, are taking a partial view of the subject and are in error. The person who believes the Bible must accept every verse, not just the ones he prefers!

Three Changes Are Necessary

The Bible reveals that there are three changes that must take place in being saved. The first change is in the heart – from unbelief to faith. Jesus said: “Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). W.E. Vine defines “faith” as “a firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing.” Paul said, “So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10: 17). Though faith is necessary, and one cannot be saved without it, a person may believe and not be saved. When Jesus was on earth, “of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God” (Jn. 12:42,43). One who believes, but will not confess Christ, cannot be saved. The apostle Paul said that Agrippa “believed,” but he was not a Christian (Acts 26:27,28).

The second change involved in conversion is the will. The sinner must repent, turn from sin and to God, in order to be saved. “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent. . .” (Acts 17:30). Jesus said, “Excep ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3). One who believes in Christ, but will not repent of his sins cannot be saved. The believing Jews on Pentecost (those who had been “pricked in their hearts,” Acts 2:37) were told to “repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of your sins. . .” (Act 2:38).

The third change is in relationship – from outside to inside Christ. The New Testament clearly says we are “baptized into Christ.” Before baptism, one is outside of Christ, but after he has believed in Christ, repented of his sins and been baptized for the remission of sins, he is “in Christ,” or saved. “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom, 6:3). “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). One is not baptized “because he is in Christ,” but “into Christ.”

The Great Commission

The three changes can be seen in the synoptic account of the “great commission.” Matthew recorded: “Go Ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Mark stated: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk 16:15,16). The parallel account in Luke says: “And th repentance and remission of sins should be preached in name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47). The sum of the three accounts is that the gospel w to be preached “to every creature,” and that they were to believe, repent and be baptized. This was to begin in Jerusalem, which was fulfilled in Acts two.

Acts Shows How To Be Saved

There are three times in the book of Acts where the question “What must I do?” is asked and answered. We will notice each of them and why the answer was given in each instance.

In Acts 16, the Philippian jailor, who was an unbeliever, cried out: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (v. 30). He was told to “believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house” (v. 31). The next verse states that they “spake the word unto him, with all that were in his house.” He had to hear before he could believe (Rom. 10: 17). He then washed the stripes of Paul and Silas, indicating repentance, and “was baptized, he and all his immediately” (v. 33). He made all three changes involved in conversion.

The second example that we notice is found in Acts 2. The Jews on Pentecost had heard the preaching of the apostles concerning the crucified and risen Lord, and being “pricked in their hearts” asked, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (v.37). Peter’s reply was: “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). They were not told to “believe on the Lord,” because they already did! They were not told that they were already saved, because they were not! As believers, they needed to repent and be baptized “unto the remission of their sins.

The third example is Saul of Tarsus. Saul was persecuting the church and was on the way to Damascus to arrest brethren in that city. As he journeyed, a great light from heaven shined on him, and the Lord spoke to him. Saul said “What shall I do, Lord?” (Acts 22:10). Three days later: the Lord sent Ananias to tell him what to do. Ananias told him: “And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (v. 16). Saul was not told to believe on the Lord, for he already did! He was not told to repent, for he already had! He was not told that he was already saved, because he was not! He was told to “arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his, name.” This changed his relationship, from outside to inside of Christ. Paul later wrote: “All we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death” (Rom. 6:3).

But, someone says, “What about the thief on the cross?” No doubt, more people have been misled by the thief than by any other argument. The thief on the cross is not the answer to the question “What must I do?” for two reasons.

First, the testament of Christ went into effect after His death (Heb. 9:16,17). Jesus was not dead when He was talking to the thief. The teaching of Romans 6:1-5 did not apply to the thief; it does apply to us. Paul included himself among those who had been “buried with him through baptism into death” and “raised in the likeness of his resurrection.” Paul said that the “walking in newness of life” followed being buried in baptism. This did not apply to the thief, for Christ had neither died nor been raised when He was talking with the thief!

Second, the thief did not believe in the resurrected Lord. Paul said, “Because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The thief on the cross did not believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead, for He had not! If you can be saved like the thief, you can be saved without believing in the resurrection of Jesus.

There is something I must do in order to be saved! I must believe in Jesus Christ. That involves accepting His every claim, for they were proven by His resurrection from the dead. I must repent of my sins, because the Bible says so! I must be baptized into Christ to “wash away” my sins, because the Bible says so!

God wants you to be saved. He sent his Son to die for you and gave the Bible to reveal the conditions you must meet in order to obtain salvation. The way is plain. “Now, why tarriest thou?”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 20, pp. 614, 629
October 18, 1984

By Mark W. Moseley

The modernist says, “We need a changing religion to keep up with a changing world.” The humanist says, “The Bible cannot meet the needs of modern man. It is archaic and outdated. We need a new approach to solve the problems of a scientific age.” The moralist says, “The Bible is old-fashioned and steeped in backward, prejudicial ethics. The moral hang-ups and inhibitions of a 2000 + year old book cannot provide the moral standard for a progressive society.”

Certainly it must be admitted that books written by men quickly lose their relevancy to society. How keenly we are made aware of this fact by simply browsing through a science book that is twenty, ten, or even five years old. The only books that men have written ages ago that have much to offer are those that deal with the nature of man. Modern man is considered to be intellectual if he can recite the works of men like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. How can this be? Because such men grappled with the essential questions of life: What is my purpose? Where am I going? How can I find happiness?

The philosophies of man still intrigue us today. Why? Because they deal with the nature of man and that nature has not changed. Unfortunately, after studying both ancient and modern philosophies, we are still left in the dark. Man simply cannot find the answers to the questions of life by himself. “I know, 0 Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself; Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). A study of man’s history up to our present civilization clearly reveals this to be so. Whenever men have given up the knowledge of God in their quest for independence the result has been the same. Paul’s description of the wicked Gentile world in Romans I could easily be an excerpt from today’s newspaper editorial column.

Is the Bible relevant? How can it be? Let me suggest to you three points that demonstrate the relevancy of the Bible to modern man. (1) God is the author of the Bible. (2) It meets the needs of modern man. (3) It answers the problems of modern man.

The Bible is relevant because it is the word of God! The great Creator and designer of all things can alone open the door to the meaning and purpose of life. He alone holds the keys of wisdom and understanding. God made man in His own image (Gen. 1:24f). Who is better qualified to tell man the answers to the questions of life? No science book ever written can tell man where he came from, where he is going, or why he is here. But the Bible answers all these questions.

In fact, Paul answered them all in Acts 17:24-31. Man came from God. “The God who made the world and all things in it . . . He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things . . . in Him we live and move and exist For we also are His offspring.” Man is here to seek and serve God “. . . if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” And man is going to God where he will stand before Him in judgment. “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Peter made this magnificent statement concerning the word of God in 1 Peter 1:22-25, “Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God. For, all flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever. And this is the word which was preached to you.”

The Word Of God Meets The Needs Of Modern Man

Space does not permit us to do much more than simply demonstrate that this is so. What are man’s basic needs and how does the Bible meet those needs?

Of course the Bible does not meet the physical needs of man. That is not its purpose. But as Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4) Man has a dual nature of body and spirit. When a man satisfies only the body and ignores the spirit, he is bound to be frustrated. He is bound to yearn for that which is still missing. That is why people who are rich, famous and popular are often still unhappy and unfulfilled. Only the Bible can truly satisfy the spiritual needs of man.

1. Man Needs To Be Loved. How does the Bible meet that need? By telling us that no matter who we are, what our station in life may be, or what others think about us, God loves us. (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Jn. 15:13). God has loved us with the greatest love ever known to man. With an unselfish, sacrificial love He gave Himself for us to save us from condemnation.

What is more, the Bible teaches us to love God with all ou, heart, soul, and mind (Mt. 22:37) and to love our neighbor as ourself (Mt. 22:39). Try as it might, we know that human wisdom has never been able to supply this kind of love “for all the world.”

Man Needs Peace. If there is anything the world longs for, it is peace. And yet the most important and valuable peace is available now through the gospel. Peace of mind, peace with self, and peace with God is found through Jesus Christ. Even if the world will not turn from selfishness and war, this peace can be ours (Jn. 14:27; Rom. 5:4, Gal. 3:15). And who can deny that if all men would live according to the teaching of the Prince of Peace there would be no more war of any kind.

3. Man Needs Important Work. He needs a reason for living. It seems that only a few people are destined to do anything that can be viewed as truly lasting and important. Not many of us will ever be a president, senator or even a town mayor. We will not likely be the head of some great company or find the cure to some dread disease. But if we are Christians, our work is of eternal importance. There is no greater work in all the world than that of serving God faithfully. Every Christian has an important mission in life to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” (Mk. 16:15). Furthermore, Paul said in Ephesians 6:7, “With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men.” With that view of life all work becomes important. Everything the Christian does, he does to please God. What could be more important?

The Bible Answers The Problems Of Modern Man

1. The Bible Answers Social And Moral Problems. Who can deny that if men lived according to the teaching of the Scriptures there would be no more lawlessness and rebellion (Rom. 13:1-7). If both citizens and government recognize that they will give an account before God as to how they execute their civil responsibilities, there would be no more injustice or anarchy.

If men lived according to Bible principles, there would not be one drunkard or dope addict (1 Cor. 6:19,20; Gal. 5:21). There would not be one prostitute, unwed mother, or case of venereal disease (Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). There would not be one case of robbery or murder (1 Cor. 6: 10); Rom. 1:20). There would be no more problems in the home between husbands and wives or children and parents (Eph. 5:23-25; 6:14).

Racial prejudice would not be a problem if all men followed the golden rule and treated others as they would want to be treated (Mt. 7:12). If we would acknowledge that we really are “soul brothers” with all men, made in the image of God, we could hold no animosity toward one another. We would not see each other as unequal or less important.

2. The Bible Answers Ecological Problems. Surprised? It’s true. Would we have a pollution problem if all men recognized that the “earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains” (Psa. 24:1)? If we recognize that God is the owner of the universe and we are but caretakers and stewards of a small part of it, surely we will be more careful with our environment. And if I love my neighbor as myself I will not be dumping my garbage in his back yard.

3. The Bible Answers The Problem Of Sin. Of all the solutions and answers the Bible gives to the problems of life, none is more important than this – the Bible answers the spiritual problem of man, that being sin. The Scriptures provide the only viable solution to man’s guilt. It is the only answer that God will accept. The Bible is, above everything else, a story of redemption and salvation from sin. It provides an escape from our past failures, direction for the present in the path of righteousness, and a hope of eternal life in the future.

The gospel tells of God’s great sacrifice upon the cross to atone for the sins of the world (Isa. 54; Mt. 27; Eph. 2). It tells how men may be saved through the blood of Jesus by faith in Him and obedience to Him (Rom. 1:5, 16; 5:1; Acts 2:30; 22:16). Thus James proclaimed, “Therefore putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21).

Is the Bible relevant? Indeed. Yes, even more than relevant. The Bible is essential.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 20, pp. 611-612, 632
October 18, 1984

By James D. Watts

The very idea of “God” is evidence of His existence. All peoples of the world have a concept of God or “gods,” a power outside themselves which is responsible for man’s being here and to whom man is ultimately responsible.

Where did man get this idea? Two possibilities seem apparent. One, God is a creation of man’s imagination. As someone aptly put it, “In the beginning God created man in his own image, and since then man has been returning the compliment.” The second is that the concept of God has its basis in reality. We must decide which is true.

The Bible begins with the assumption of God; nowhere does it set out to prove His existence. In the first place, one does not need to prove God, and secondly, one could not prove God – not concretely, as man would have it – if it were necessary. It is, and ever shall be, a matter of faith. Only in eternity, when we know as also we are known, will it be otherwise.

Faith is the belief of a proposition based upon testimony of witnesses. We must examine the evidence and consider the testimony, and then come to a conviction of faith.

Some approach the problem from a purely subjective point of view, which is completely unreliable. The lyrics of a song in a hymnal popular among brethren say, “He lives, You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart,” The Pentecostals, with their “feeling better felt than told,” could not say it better. However, the way a Christian knows God lives is by His Word. The word of the witnesses, Christ’s apostles, forms the testimony upon which our faith rests.

God Is Because We Are

Nature attests to the existence of an intelligent creator. Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” See also Psalm 139:14. The beauty and order that is characteristic of our world proclaims that God is. To say that it all happened by chance is to remove intelligence from the process of beginnings. When we allow intelligence to be behind the order of our universe, we have to acknowledge that intelligence is God.

Some have asked, “What if man eventually is able to produce life in the laboratory? What will that do to your faith in God?” It would only prove God’s existence all the more by demonstrating the role of intelligence in creation. It will show that man, using all his accumulated scientific knowledge, is finally able to do what God did in the beginning. I personally doubt that man will ever be able to produce a true life form. But should this happen – if man figures out how God did something in the beginning and then is able to duplicate it – to me it is only further evidence that man is indeed made in the image of God.

God Is Because The Bible Is

Revelation attests to the existence of God. The world of nature may give evidence of the fact that God is, but it is reserved for the realm of revelation to tell us about the character of God and His will for us.

The Bible is the most remarkable book in the world. It has done more for civilization than all of man’s books of philosophy. The Bible was written by about 40 men over a period of about 1,600 years. There was no possibility of collusion or conspiracy among them – yet there is unity from Genesis to Revelation.

The Bible claims to be the word of God. The expression “Thus saith the Lord” occurs about 2,600 times in the Old Testament. Jesus absolutely trusted the Scriptures to be the word of God. In Luke 24:44, He said, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, tht all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.”

Jesus also based what He taught about marriage on what was written from the beginning (Matt. 19:4-8).

The Bible is not primarily a book of science, although it contains some scientific information. It also contains a considerable amount of history. These are two areas where we can test its truthfulness and find corroboration from secular sources. When the Bible says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” there is no way we can test that short of eternity – and then it will be too late. But if the Bible is without error in those areas where it can be checked (science and history), we can be sure it is likewise true in others.

God Is Because Jesus Is

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is at once the foundation and capstone of Christianity. It is the conclusive evidence that God is and that Jesus is His Son. Others have come – and others will come – who claim to be God’s Son. One of the most notorious is the Korean Sun Myung Moon, who claims he is the third Messiah, after John the Baptist and Jesus. But consider the title of a recent book on him: The Moon is Not the Son. “The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is at once the foundation and capstone of Christianity.

Jesus said He could lay down His life and take it up again (John 10:17-18). When God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 8:11), that proved the truthfulness of all that He taught. The false Christs cannot offer such demonstrations.

The point of the first sermons was the resurrection of Jesus. The apostles had only one message – Jesus Christ and Him crucified, who was raised to life again. They were willing to give their lives to preach that message, because they knew it to be true. They knew this message, the gospel, was the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). They knew that even if they lost their lives in the preaching of the gospel, He would give them eternal life. They were the witnesses of the resurrected body of Jesus. Would atheists be willing to give their lives for their non-faith?

God is! The Bible is His word and Jesus is His Son. The only thing that remains to be considered is what God is to you and me. What are we going to do about God? Are we going to love Him and obey Him? Or are we going to reject Him and neglect Him? He is the judge of the quick (living) and the dead. On the day of judgment every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God. We may entertain doubts and be a skeptic here, but there will be no question then that God is. Will you confess Him now?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 20, pp. 609, 633
October 18, 1984

By David A. Lanphear

Editor’s note: Brother Lanphear is a faithful member of the West End Church of Christ in Bowling Green and a practicing attorney. He has represented the Guardian of Truth Foundation on more than one occasion. When the problem developed regarding the Collinsville, Oklahoma lawsuit, I asked brother Lanphear to write this article for this special issue of Guardian of Truth.

Just a few weeks ago, many of us read in the headlines that an Oklahoma jury awarded a divorced mother $390,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against a congregation near Tulsa as a result of its effort to discipline her for fornication. The action arose after a statement was read to the congregation explaining the imposition of and reasons for the disciplinary action, although she had earlier withdrawn her membership from the church. She filed suit against the congregation and its elders for $1.3 million alleging invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and recovered on each claim.

While the Oklahoma case will apparently be appealed and possibly set aside, the fact that the law tolerates such a claim is as perplexing as it is dismaying. It is significant however, that this is not an isolated case inasmuch as at least two similar lawsuits are pending in other states. As a result, elders and congregations must be aware of and prepare for the legal dangers posed in matters of discipline.

First, you must be aware that all statements of law included herein are general rules which may differ in some detail from state to state. Therefore, while they are generally applicable to the matters discussed, they may or may not vary in your jurisdiction. Consequently, what may be actionable in Oklahoma, for example, may not be in Kentucky, and vice versa.

Additionally, there may be statutes in your state of which I am unaware which codify or alter these general rules or have some bearing on these issues.

Also, due to topical considerations and space restrictions, discussion of legal rules and theories will be limited to that which is pertinent here, and is by no means to be understood as exhaustive on the general subject.

Finally, if it is not yet apparent, lawyers sometime find it difficult to speak in absolute terms since most adhere to the principle that there is an exception to nearly every rule. Therefore, it is imperative that you remember that “Every case turns on its own facts,” and, if you are confronted with a specific legal problem, you should consult an attorney for specific legal advice.

From its inception, the law in this country was designed and has grown to accommodate and promote the exercise of religious freedom. In so doing, rules have developed to fairly and equally deal with a large number of varied religious beliefs, practices and societies. Generally stated, the law recognizes that one accepted as a member of a religious group continues as a member in good standing unless he voluntarily withdraws or is properly expelled. Should the group choose to expel a member, it is under a duty to substantially comply with its rules governing such matters. The courts ordinarily have no jurisdiction to review the action taken, and the sentence may be read publicly to the congregation without constituting an action for libel or slander.

However, the claims which have recently arisen and need to be addressed involve the impact of church discipline on an individual’s right to privacy and the emotional distress one may suffer under certain circumstances.

Right of Privacy

The “right of privacy” was not recognized as a separate theory of recovery and cause of action until this century, and therefore, its development is of fairly recent origin. It is actually a categorical designation for four distinct legal theories whose common denominator is the “right” to be let alone. Although only two of these sub-categories are important to this discussion, the four are: (1) intrusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts; (3) false light in public eye; and (4) appropriation of name or likeness for benefit. The two theories to which attention will be given here are intrusion and public disclosure.

Intrusion. This rule has developed to protect one from and permit recovery for intrusion into his solitude or seclusion. Its elements require an actual invasion into matters which are private and are entitled to be private, and the invasion must be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person. The wrong is committed when the intrusion takes place and there is no requirement for subsequent publication (to divulge or repeat to another). Thus, subject to the defenses and suggestions mentioned herein below, an attempt by elders or concerned brethren to pursue discussions with an errant Christian may constitute an intrusion and invasion of their right to privacy.

Public Disclosure of Private Facts. Similar in several respects to intrusion, public disclosure of private facts involves the disclosure of facts which are private and not a matter of public record. The disclosure, or publication, may be either written or oral, but the facts must be disclosed to someone other than the complaining party. Finally, the facts disclosed must be of the type which would cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation and be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities.

The application of this legal principle to church discipline is clear. A determination of whether the disclosure is offensive and objectionable however, would depend upon the nature of the sinful conduct for which discpline is imposed. For example, a jury may not find objectionable the disclosure that one is unrepentantly divisive, but at the same time be outraged at the announcement tht one hs continued in an illicit sexual relationship. Obviously however, those whose duty it is to impose discipline do not have the “luxury” of choosing the sins brethren may commit, and as a result, must fulfill their scriptural responsibilities despite the legal ramifications.

Defenses. Neither truth nor absence of malice (ill will) are defenses to invasion of privacy claims. However, one may waive his right to privacy either expressly or by his conduct. Thus, it appears to me to be entirely reasonable that when one becomes a member of the church and associates himse~f with a congregation, he thereby consents to the invasion of privacy which may be suffered by scriptural discipline. Of course, this states the matter simply, and it may be affected by other facts (such as prior withdrawal of membership by the errant party). In any event, the merits of this application of the waiver defense will be determined as more cases are practiced and the body of law develops.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a claim which may result from intentional conduct aimed at the complaining party which is extreme and outrageous, or from that which amounts to an aggravated insult or indignity to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. In order to be actionable, the conduct must cause serious mental suffering and distress, not just an affront or hurt feelings. Once again, the application of this theory of recovery to church discipline depends on the nature of the offense for which discipline is imposed, and whether a reasonable individual of ordinary sensibilities would suffer such distress under the circumstances.

Defenses. It is unlikely that a defense claiming proper motives and spiritual concern would bring much success. Besides a direct attack on whether mental distress was in fact suffered, a more plausible approach (though perhaps no more successful) may follow the waiver defense discussed hereinabove, that is, that when one voluntarily associates himself with the church and submits to its lawful authority and style of life, he does so consenting to this proper expulsion and the consequences thereof.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are certainly not unique or exhaustive, and amount to nothing more than simple, common sense suggestions one may follow to reduce the dange of the legal problems discussed above or complications of the same or similar problems.

(1) Make sure that discipline is not rooted in personality differences, or the product of ill will or hard feelings.

(2) Make sure that discipline is based on conduct and doctrine that is clearly defined and/or proscribed in Scripture, and not that which may fall in the gray realm of judgment or is the proper object of toleration.

(3) Make sure that discipline is based on factually established circumstances. Care should be taken if such matters are investigated to avoid a possible claim of defamation of character.

(4) Strictly adhere to Scripture. This is important not only because God requires it, but also because in co urt the church must explain and prove what procedure it follows in exercising discipline. Therefore, strict adherence is a significant factual and legal matter.

(5) During private conferences with an errant party, emphasis should be given to scriptural duty in these matters, and that the purpose is to bring one back, not drive him away.

(6) Keep a record of private conferences with the party involved-date and time, where it was held, who was there, length of conference and a brief memorandum of what was discussed. If at all possible, these meetings should be held at the church building or similar, independent meeting place because it evidences that both parties met voluntarily for the purpose of discussing the problem.

(7) Treat discussions with the other party confidentially.

(8) Determine whether an umbrella or other insurance policy is available. In most instances, insurance policies do not cover intentional conduct (such as these claims) so specific inquiry should be made.

It is not within my province or ability to discuss the merits of the necessity of withdrawing from those who have disassociated themselves from the local church. However, were one able to adopt the view that it is unnecessary, obvious legal problems would be avoided. Likewise, if one is able to adopt the view that statements of discipline read publicly to the congregation need not specifically detail the sin involved, but rather state generally that one has continued in sin and failed to repent, then the factual basis upon which a claim can be predicated may be substantially reduced.

Finally, there is no substitute for thoughtful deliberation, careful consideration and the exercise of sound judgement in matters of church discipline, both from the standpoint of obeying God and in order to avoid, to the extent possible, the pitfalls which could lead to liability in a civil claim. None of these suggestions wil prevent someone from filing a lawsuit against a congregation or its elders, but they may in some degree prevent its successful prosecution. In no event however, should a fear of the law or lawsuits impede one from fulfilling his scriptural obligations regarding church discipline. In the words of the Apostle Peter: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 590-591
October 4, 1984