Truth Magazine

By Alan Hadfield

With public and official opinion apparently beginning to swing back in favor of capital punishment, the subject is getting quite a bit of attention from all quarters. The letter to Guardian of Truth (8/2/84) implied questions many are asking, “Is capital punishment contrary to the will of God? What should be the Christian’s attitude?” Because it is so emotional an issue, it is often difficult to disregard our feelings and look at it dispassionately.

An Emotional Issue

One has only to see the demonstrations on TV newsreels, and hear the vehement outbursts that accompany every judicial execution, to realize that this is a highly emotional subject, and it is very easy for us to let that cloud our judgement. Everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and feelings–in fact, as human beings we cannot escape them–but of course, they count for nothing in establishing the truth. And it should be remembered, while thinking of the emotions involved, that there are many–especially the family and friends of victims–who feet equally strongly for capital punishment as others do against it. While we can all feel compassion for those who face execution, it is difficult not to feel revulsion at the sadistic brutality that so often marks the murder of children and old people, and to feel that such are among those of whom the Lord said, “they are worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).

The approach used by opponents varies from emotional, to rational, to biblical. The death penalty is often equated with abortion as a murder; it is declared to be useless, because “it is not a deterrent;” it is condemned as a violation of individual human rights; it is derided as a barbaric relic of the past; one placard seen on a newsreel proclaimed it to be “cruel and unusual punishment” and therefore, presumably, unconstitutional; over and over we hear that it violates the Lord’s commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” and the New Testament emphasis on mercy and forgiveness.

The Need for Perspective

Let’s get some of these things into perspective. Firstly, it is not in the least equatable with abortion. Abortion is a personal action based on an individual decision, and takes the life of an innocent infant, and as such may be considered murder. Capital punishment is a judicial action, performed within the law by properly constituted authorities after the proper processes to determine guilt, and takes the life of one proved guilty. To term it murder is a gross misuse of the term.

It is claimed that it is not a deterrent, and statistics are produced to show that the death sentence does not lower the murder rate. That may or may not be so, but I would suggest that there is at least one person who is deterred from further murder by execution! And it cannot be denied that without the death sentence, many who are released go out and repeat their crime. Put yourself in the place of the person who has lost a loved one to a released murderer, knowing that the death sentence could have prevented it.

Neither is it “cruel and unusual punishment.” It does not involve torture, or sadism, or the prolongation of suffering. And even if it did, we could still only object to the manner of execution, not to the execution itself. Judicial execution in most countries today is swift, and shows considerably more mercy to the murderer than most murderers show toward their victims.

As to its being a violation of personal human rights, that is about as empty an argument as is possible to present. “Rights” are not inviolable–they can be forfeited, and are forfeited by all law-breakers. The “human rights” argument could be applied to any punishment for any crime, which is manifestly absurd.

“Thou Shalt Not Kill”

Those that put this on a biblical level usually quote God’s command, “Thou shalt not kill,” but in doing so ignore the purpose and subjects of the command. It is a fundamental error to confuse the responsibilities of the individual and of the State. The State can, and must, do many things that the individual may not do. That is why the judicial system, among others, is constituted in the first place. Individually exercised punishment of offences is unacceptable because it is too open to abuse, but the State must take that responsibility or perish.

At the same time that God, through Moses, gave the command “Thou shalt not kill,” He also listed numerous transgressions for which the penalty was to be death. It is not difficult to see how God could forbid the individual from taking a life, acting on his own judgment and exacting personal vengeance, and at the same time require the penalty of death to be imposed after correct judicial process, which would guard against punishing the innocent.

The brother who wrote to Guardian of Truth seemed to think it inconsistent that one should approve the death sentence, yet be unwilling to perform the execution. But that need not be so, I have on occasion had to “put down” sick or injured pets. While it was necessary, I did not enjoy doing it, and would not have done it if I could have found someone else to do it for me. In the case of legal execution, a Christian could approve the principle and leave its performance to one who was not a Christian, without being inconsistent.

The Christian And Capital Punishment

In the course of instructing Christians to be obedient to civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-7), Paul warns us that this is because they are God’s “ministers” to bring His wrath on evil-doers. In v. 4 he warns, “for he (the civil authority) beareth not the sword in vain.” It is significant that he uses the term “sword,” and not “scepter” or some equivalent symbol of authority. The sword is not merely an emblem of authority, but of execution.

In Genesis 9:5-6 God established the principle that the blood (life) of a murder Victim was to be paid for by the blood (life) of his murderer. Later, in giving the Law through Moses, he ordered that such a case be carefully examined, but where found guilty the culprit was to die, and he could not be ransomed (Num. 35:30-31; Ex. 21:12-14). No reprieve!

Vengeance is God’s, and always has been, so the individual may not impose his own vengeance. But in many instances God executes that vengeance through men, and those who perform the execution are not violating the command not to kill. The judicial sword is still borne with God’s approval.

But what of the commands to “forgive your enemies” and “turn the other cheek”? Certainly, the Christian is to be merciful and forgiving, rendering good for evil always (Matt. 5:38-30,44; Rom. 12:19; etc.). But that is for offences against himself! He cannot forgive sins against God, nor crimes against men. God requires those to be paid for, and has appointed the “powers that be” to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” I believe it is properly argued that the Christian should have no active part in that work, but we cannot deny the proper authorities their right to it.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 563, 569
September 20, 1984

By Titus Edwards

In 1969, John Reaves was beginning to do the kind of things that they write folklore about. As a sophomore at the University of Florida, he threw five touchdown passes in his college debut. In 1972 he was the No. I draft pick of the Philadelphia Eagles. But within a couple of years he was, in his own words, “strung out on dope. Eventually I was separated from my wife, estranged from my children, an alcoholic, $100,000 in debt, wrecking cars, causing scenes in restaurants and hiding from the police. And to think I figured if I made it to the NFL, I’d live happily ever after.”

John Reaves was one of the University of Florida’s biggest heroes. He set and still holds many Gator and NCAA passing records. Unfortunately, he was a flop in the NFL. The Gators finished 9-1-1 in his sophomore year. They slumped to 7-4 his junior year and collapsed to 4-7 his senior year. The reason–Reaves began big league drinking and pot smoking. His first joint was given to him by a former Florida player as they drove around Gainesville. Reaves said of the incident, “I didn’t like it when I did it. I knew it was wrong, and I felt extremely guilty. But I did it anyway. It was just plain dumb. My whole life started going downhill–my grades, my ability as an athlete, my relationships with my fellow students and teammates. I could see that was the cause. But I couldn’t quit.”

In the NFL, he continued his drinking and got heavier into all kinds of drugs. His wife, Patti, was with him, “slugging it out with me”–sharing pills and pot. His playing ability became so poor, he was benched and finally traded to Cincinnati, where he sat on the bench. He was cut by the Bengals and picked up by the Vikings, where he sat on the bench and watched Tommy Kramer play. He got heavily into cocaine. “It got to a point where I was literally saturated with drugs and alcohol. I was becoming violent. My nose was running; my liver was swollen; my skin and complexion looked waxy. My friends were abandoning me, my wife couldn’t stand me anymore. My habit was more important to me than my wife and family . . . .”

He left his family, almost killed himself because of drunken driving, and was ordered to be picked up by a judge for psychiatric evaluation. He fled in terror. “While I was there (in hiding), I took a long look at the rotten mess I’d made out of my life and how I’d destroyed everything through the lust of my flesh. I was at the end of myself. I had nothing, zero.”

Well, the story has a happy ending. John Reaves, he says, found the Lord at this time and changed his life. He quit the drinking and drugs, reconciled with his family, and is now playing football for the Tampa Bay Bandits of the USFL. He spends much time in Bible study and teaching others.

Young people, you don’t have to learn everything the hard way! Learn from John Reaves’ self-admitted mistakes. He knew when he first started into drugs what was happening, but he didn’t quit. Be smarter than he was. Be more controlled. Recognize the vanity and deception of sin before you hit rock bottom. Turn to the Lord now and live righteously before sin ruins your life!

“But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13). “For he that will love life, and see good days . . . Let him eschew evil, and do good (1 Pet. 3:10-11).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 562
September 20, 1984

By Edgar J. Dye

My assignment is indicated by the question: Washing our hands or attempting to save a soul? And my ultimate purpose is to discuss what seems to be a tendency in some churches to simply wash their hands of a wayward member without making any genuine effort to reclaim their soul, with a view to trying to get those who may be guilty to repent and begin to practice the Lord’s will in this matter. To do this we shall strive to lay some foundation work showing its absolute need before we deal with evidence that it is occurring and some of the reasons why it is occurring.

The Greatest Work

Seeking to convert and save souls is the greatest work which can be done by God’s people, either individually or collectively. And there are many reasons why this is true. Obviously the Lord placed more importance upon saving the soul than in saving the physical body. This is taught by Jesus in Matthew 4:4, when, during His temptation by the devil in the wilderness, He said “. . . man shall not live by bread alone He also taught it in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:19-34, and where in v.33, He sums it up by saying, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness Again in Matthew 10:16-39, He cautions and encourages His disciples to faithfulness in duty in the face of great physical danger by warning them of what men will do to them, by urging them to endure to the end in spite of the danger of suffering physical harm, by calling upon them to fear God who “is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” rather than to fear man who can only “kill the body,” and by warning, “He that findest his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” Note also Matthew 16:24, 25. In His efforts to instruct, prepare and strengthen His apostles that they may be faithful in their work as His witnesses the world over, Jesus tells them in John 15:18-16:4, they must be prepared to suffer and endure the same treatment He suffered at the hands of unbelievers – hatred and even death. And that those who will do such things to them will do it thinking “that he doeth God service.” This same emphasis on saving the soul rather than the physical body when danger and death are faced is taught in Revelation 2:10 and applied to all saints. It is “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” not until death!

Seeking to save the soul, our own and others, is of the greatest importance because of the value of even one soul, which is more than the whole world (Mt. 16:26); because of the blessings received, joy experienced and hope entertained when one is converted from sin and saved from condemnation; such as, remission of past sins (Acts 2:38), spiritual fellowship with Deity (Mt. 28:19; 1 Jn. 1:1-3), peace that passeth understanding (Phil. 4:7), all spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph. 1:3), and hope of eternal life (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:19, 20; 1 Pet. 1:3-5, 9); because of escaping the horrible punishment one will experience in hell if and when he dies in his sins (Mt. 10:28; 25:46; Mk. 9:43-48; 2 Thess. 1:7-10).

Primary Obligation

Do I need to argue at length in order to prove to you that our seeking to save souls, our own and others, is the primary obligation of God’s people both individually and collectively? Do not all of us know and understand the Bible well enough to know this is the first and foremost obligation God has placed upon us? Does not Jesus’ coming for that express purpose (Lk. 19:10; Mt. 1:21; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:3-6), rather than to provide for our physical well-being and physical safety, make this obvious? Does not the commission He gave His apostles and the price they paid in physical and mental suffering to carry out that commission (1 Cor. 4:9-14; 1 Cor. 9; 2 Cor. 11) impress this fact upon our minds and cause us to accept this truth? Do I need to cite the many passages which place this obligation upon us and emphasize its importance to convince us of our God-ordained duty to be busily engaged in doing it.

Efforts At Prevention Required

In view of this obvious obligation, we ought to be putting forth every scriptural and God-glorifying effort at our command to fulfill our duty of seeking to save the lost. But, also, to recognize the God-given duty to diligently work at trying to prevent these souls from falling from grace once they have been converted, to keep them saved once they have been converted, is of the utmost importance.

The Danger of Falling is great and the Bible declared it time and time again; let us be mindful of it. Paul taught it in Acts 20:28-32; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; Hebrews 3:12-19 12:14, 15. Peter taught it in 2 Peter 2:20-22. Satan’s success in seducing disciples and of the fact of falling is often spoken of in the Bible; let us recognize it. Peter says the devil is actively “seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8b). James necessarily implies it in James 4:7. Paul declares the fact of it in Galatians 1:6 and 5:4. Our duty is evident; let us do it. The means to affect it are placed in our hands; let us use them. Elders are admonished “to feed the church” or “feed the flock of God which is among you,” and to “watch” in view of the possibility that “grievous wolves enter in among you not sparing the flock,” and “also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Pet. 5:14; Heb. 13:17).

Timothy was left at Ephesus “to teach” and “to charge” (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:17-19)’ to “put the brethren in remembrance” (1 Tim. 4:6); to “be an example of the brethren,” to “take heed to thyself, and unto the doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:11-16); to “preach the word . . . reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:1-5); to try to prevent this from happening and that the brethren might be strong, faithful, and “lay hold on eternal life.” So was Titus left in Crete (Tit. 1:5, 2:1,15; 3:1,2). We are admonished not to sin (1 Cor. 15:34; 1 Jn. 2: 1); to “examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Cor. 13:5); to “stand fast … and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5: 1); to “warn the unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men” (1 Thess. 5:14); “to give the more earnest heed . . . lest at any time we should … slip” or “neglect so great salvation” (Heb. 2:1-3); to take great care lest we cause a weak brother to perish (1 Cor. 8:11-13); and we are to “consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works” (Heb. 10:24). Thus it is quite evident that we are to faithfully and continually teach, lovingly and diligently admonish and patiently encourage one another to edification and to the salvation of our souls. Moreover, the means whereby this can be done is placed in our hands, which is God’s written word (Acts 20:32). Let us use it.

Reclaim and Restore

In addition to all of this, the Bible lays upon us the duty to strive to reclaim and to restore those overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6: 1); to publicly discipline and withdraw from those who can’t be brought to repentance any other way (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). The danger of being overtaken in a fault, of falling from grace and of refusing brotherly admonition to repent, is real; the duty to do the proper thing about it when it occurs is emphatically commanded and easily understood as necessary. James tells us what a great work is done when we reclaim and restore by converting “the sinner from the error of his way”; it is saving “a soul from death” and hiding “a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:19,20).

Are We Washing Our Hands?

All this should make us aware, or remind us, of how terrible it is if we be guilty of simply washing our hands of a wayward member, any wayward member, through ignorance, weakness, indifference or willful neglect. In spite of all this, it is quite possible we are guilty of making this tragic mistake. From the evidence available by observation and by the unwitting comments of some, it seems some churches of Christ have been and are guilty of it – perhaps even the one of which I am a member or which you are a member. And no doubt various reasons are offered for doing it.

Objections which I have encountered and refusals or proneness to neglect to honestly and fairly consider scriptural answers to these objections constitutes evidence that some have been and continue to be guilty. The mere making of objections does not, of course, in and of itself, indicate there is an effort to wash one’s hands of a member. But a refusal to consider or a neglect to honestly and fairly consider Bible evidence to the contrary seems to me to do so. It is to such that I refer in this paper.

Some have said to me, “The Parable of the Tares (Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43) opposes public withdrawal or disfellowshipping of a member by teaching us to let the saint and the sinner grow together in the church, lest while we gather up the tares, we root up also the wheat with them.” My reply has been, “If it does, then Jesus contradictes Himself and His apostles are false teachers; for Jesus commanded it and His apostles taught and practiced it (2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor. 5).” The fact is, this parable doesn’t refer to church discipline, for “the field is the world,” not the church (v. 38). In human society, in the world, the wicked and the righteous do dwell together in the field, with the churches limited as to what they can or ought to do about it (1 Cor. 5:9-13).

I have been told, “Matthew 7:1 says we are not supposed to judge anyone. And this is what we are doing if we disfellowship anyone.” But a study of Matthew 7:1 in context reveals that the kind of judging involved in v. I is forbidden because it is harsh, unkind, hypocritical and unrighteous judgment, which is never right (vv. 3-5). While vv. 6,15-20 require another kind of judging which is always right and often demanded, which is “righteous judgment” (compare Jn. 7:24; Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 6:5; 1 Jn. 4:1; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Some have been known to say, “Withdrawal of fellowship will tear up the church or make trouble in the church and do more harm than good.” But it did not tear up the church at Corinth (2 Cor. 2:6-11; 7:6-16). If it will tear up the church, God did not know it and made the mistake of commanding something which would tear up the church doing more harm than good; if it will, the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, preached and practiced that which will tear up the church. Who can honestly believe it? If disfellowship is needed, the trouble is already in the church, with the withdrawal required in order to help both the individual and the church, not to harm them. The fact is, the church where such exists will be torn up or ruined if we don’t withdraw.

“It may harden them so they will never return.” It is strange that God didn’t know this. Let us talk about and emphasize what the Bible says it did and is for the purpose of doing, instead of what men think it may or may not do. “None of us is without sin, therefore we cannot mark others; for the Bible says, ‘Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”‘ Though the professed Christian does sin, he does not live in or practice sin; but he does repent of and confess his sin; and the Bible does not call him a “sinner” (1 Jn. 1:7-9; 3:3-10; Eph. 2:1). Abraham, for example, lied (Gen. 12:10-19), But Abraham was not a “liar.” Furthermore, we are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).

“People will leave the church and go to the denominations if we do that.” One who would leave the Lord’s church and “go to the denominations” because purity of life and faithfulness are required would do great injury to the church if allowed to go undisciplined. I have known of the reverse being the case, of people being taught and converted from the denominations because they respected a local church for its stand on purity of life. “Discipline will ‘make trouble’ in the community and the families involved if we take this action.” No, the trouble is already there and is deep-seated by the time the church is required to take public action. Proper discipline by a local church will not “make trouble”; it will aid in seeking to correct it with God’s blessings.

Many years ago one group of elders said to me, “Well, I never heard the old-time perachers say anything about this, and we have been doing it like this for over thirty years.” If that be true, it would only mean the “old-time preachers” failed to do their duty as preachers.

I pray no one will use the recent court decision handed down in Oklahoma against the elders of a church just outside Tulsa as an excuse to wash their hands of a wayward member instead of making a genuine effort to reclaim his soul. Neglect, unscriptural objections and flimsy excuses are but tools of Satan used to deny the plain word of God and the duty of saints led by faithful elders to keep the church pure.

Some Reasons

Perhaps plain Bible teaching on discipline is neglected or excused for some of the following reasons. It may be because so little is taught about it and so few people have seen it practiced. Years ago it was said that “Many local churches can hardly lay claim to even believing New Testament teaching on public discipline,” and that “Many local churches are not even a forty-second cousin to New Testament ch~rches when it comes to the matter of discipline.” How long since you have heard anything more than reference to church disipline? As long as this is the case, many will continue to misunderstand the real need and the God-honoring, soul-saving purposes of it and will continue to offer objections to it or refuse to practice it just as some people do to baptism for the remission of sins. When more is taught on it and more of it practiced, more Christians will believe in it and be ready to practice it.

It may be neglected because our faith is weak and our spiritual barometer is falling. It may be because of fear of what the guilty party will do when disciplined; of what the guilty party’s family and friends will do; fear of sin and guilt in our own lives; fear of hurting someone’s feelings; fear of tearing up the church and driving people away; or fear of suffering some kind of persecution if we do it.

It may be neglected because we don’t want to get involved. But we are already involved if we are members of the church, and it is high time we realized it. Could it be the case that sometimes it has been neglected so long and, as a result, there is so much sin in the local church where we are that we don’t know where to start or can’t find enough faithful ones to start it? Remember this: sin begets sin; neglect begets more neglect. Neglect of sin can tie our hands and even render us incapable of any constructive action in reclaiming souls from sin.

It can be because of incompetence in the eldership of a church (not qualified); because of unfaithfulness in an eldership (winking at sin); or because of pressure from unbelieving and unruly members who will not follow the lead of Godfearing elders in administering it.

Discipline often becomes one of the most difficult things an eldership has to do – which makes it easier to neglect and convenient to offer excuses for not doing it and thus to wash their hands of a wayward member without making full and complete effort to reclaim his soul.

Conclusion

New Testament teaching on discipline must be obeyed if we are to please God, keep the church pure, and reclaim and restore those overtaken in sin, which we do not do by ignoring it or by having “good intentions,” or by talking it to death without doing anything about it. It is too easy to simply “talk a good game” on church discipline.

It is wholly inconsistent to insist on the law of admission into fellowship and then discard the law of exclusion from fellowship; both are divinely enjoined; both are to be respected and obeyed. How many have drifted away from Christ which we could have saved had we cared enough to dare to discipline? Only God knows. But let us delay no longer (Heb. 12:1-3; 2:1-3; 12:25).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 584-585, 598
October 4, 1984

By Larry Ray Hafley

Though the precise words, “church discipline,” are not found in the Bible, the action is authorized (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). Common expressions, such as “gospel meeting,” “prayer meeting, ” “God’s second law of pardon,” are not found in those specific terms in the word of God; however, the ideas they represent are scriptural “as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11; cf. Acts 20:20; 16:16; 1 Jn. 1:9; Acts 8:22).

Things Not to be Achieved By Church Discipline

In order to study a subject, it is often helpful to consider negative aspects. It is not the goal of church discipline:

(1) To get revenge. One may harbor hatred in his heart for another. His abuse of church discipline is a cloak of malice to vent his bitterness against a brother. “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth” (Prov. 24:17). Surely, God will severely judge those who spitefully use church discipline in order to meanly hurt others. Beware of those who fiendishly enjoy prosecuting a brother with the lash of discipline.

(2) To drive someone away. Occasionally, a power hungry brother may see another growing in favor with God and man. His Hamanic jealousy maddens and motivates him to hang his Mordecai. In cases like this, a man and his disciples will decide to exercise church discipline; then, they will look for a weapon, a charge. This is the means the Jews used to put Jesus to death. “Give him a fair trial; then, hang him.” Look twice at the man who delights to “get rid of” someone rather than to salvage a soul. The spirit of Diotrophes is alive and well in such events (3 Jn. 9).

(3) To let the elders flex their muscles. Without sound judgment and devoid of sober discretion, freshly appointed elders may decide to show their newly acquired power by cracking the whip of discipline. An elder is a shepherd, a pastor, not a big game hunter on a jungle safari. Elders are to lead and feed (not dictatorially drive) the flock. The eldership is not a place where chairmen of the board are to “show who’s boss.” Certainly, elders should direct the church in disciplinary action, but they and the church are to act “with the power of our Lord Jesus,” and not by the authority of an autocratic eldership.

(4) To put the church on the map. Churches, like men, have personalities. Some are known for good works of all kinds. Others are known for personal work programs or great Bible classes. Some are known for their bickering, wrangling and divisions, and another may seek to be known as first in the practice of church discipline. A preacher may come in and decide to make a name for the church and himself by leading the nation in people withdrawn from. (It is a dubious distinction.) They announce the names of those on the “withdrawal list” with as much pride as a savage displays his scalps, hides and heads. A wholesale house cleaning may be necessary (2 Cor. 12:20, 21), but there ought to be better things to build a reputation, if that is your purpose.

(5) To hurt someone who has disgraced the church. Sin disgraces the sinner and the church (2 Sam. 12:14; 2 Pet. 2:2), but discipline is not to be used in the spirit of mob vengeance. A sinner cannot be redeemed if his tormentors seek to harm rather than help, and he (the sinner) knows the difference. In a shameful case, a church must search its collective heart and attitude as it strives to do what is right and best.

(6) To make up for the past. A sermon is preached on discipline and the brethren see it has been ignored; so, in order to make up for past negligence, “Let’s find some candidates and make an example of them.” A church, with a fiery new preacher or elders, can turn a quiet Sunday afternoon business meeting into a witch hunting lynch mob. Fur and feather will fly and heads will roll, but the errors of the past are not to be compared to the havoc of the future.

Purposes Of Church Discipline

Discipline is instruction. It is positive and negative in affect. It must tear down and build up. Parallel to Scripture, discipline “is profitable for doctrine (teaching), for reproof (of false words and deeds), for correction (of sinful conduct), for instruction in righteousness (to establish godly behavior.)” Therefore, church discipline:

(1) Is “for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor. 5:5). A child is disciplined in order to eliminate dangerous habits and bad actions. The sinner is disciplined in order to remove his carnal conduct. The fornicating brother in Corinth needed to have his work of the flesh destroyed. One of the designs of discipline is “the destruction of the flesh,” i.e., the abolitfon of sinful acts. Hymanaeus and Alexander were “delivered unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme”; that is, for the destruction of their evil ways (1 Tim. 1: 19, 20).

Discipline that is not done with this end in mind can only serve to harden the sinner in his error. Spanking a child is not for solely punitive purposes. It is to turn him away from negative activity. It is the same in church discipline.

(2) Is done “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Discipline would be more often successful, perhaps, if churches would remember that this aim looms over all other objects. “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know “that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:19,20). It is absolutely essential that this purpose be communicated to the one in error. Otherwise, the discipline will be scorned. Passions may become feverish and intense during the ordeal of discipline, but an inflamed church will not convey its desire to have the sinner’s spirit saved. If the sinner is to be redeemed, he must see that this is your primary target, the salvation of his soul.

(3) Is to prevent others from being Infected. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6). “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). This is the old adage, “One bad apple spoils the whole barrel.” Sin that is tolerated will grow and spread like a fever-“and their word will eat as doth a canker (gangrene)” (2 Tim. 2:17). “Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). This was part of the function of Old Testament punishment: “And thou shalt stone him with stones…. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you” (Deut. 13: 10,11). If one is allowed to sin with impunity, others will be led to engage their lusts. Thus, discipline discourages others from being “led away with the error of the wicked.”

Again, in the Old Testament, rebellious, incorrigible children were to be stoned to death. Someone remarked, “If we did that today just think how many hundreds would be executed!” But it was, as I recall, Eugene Britnell who remarked, “No, they would only have to stone one.” His meaning was, of course, that others would fear and straighten up their lives.

The church at Pergamos contained those that held “the doctrine of Baalam” and “the doctrine of the Nicolatians” (Rev. 2:14,15). The implication is that as Baalam “cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel,” so would those in the church there cause saints to fall. Further, in the church at Thyatira, Jezebel taught and seduced God’s people to sin (Rev. 2:20). She had to be removed, “and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts” (Rev. 2:23). The hearts of the simple are deceived if errant members are not marked and avoided (Rom. 16:17,18).

(4) Projects a good image before the world. “And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things” (Acts 5:11). The sin and death of Ananias and Sapphira had a profound effect upon the entire community. Right thinking people will esteem a congregation that will abominate rather than tolerate sin. The unbeliever is turned away from truth when he sees a church coddling within its ranks what it condemns without. Perhaps the words of Paul included the heathen populace when he said, “In all things ye have approved yourselves clear in this matter (2 Cor. 7: 11).

In the Old Testament, reference is made to the negative influence of sin in Israel when seen by idolatrous nations. It is true today. Churches often wonder why they do not command the respect of their locality. Part of the problem is their failure to reprove and rebuke sin in their own midst. Imagine attempting to convert a gentile in Corinth when the pagan knows the church endorses and encourages one of its own who is involved in a gross and vile immorality that even the heathen himself denounces (1 Cor. 5:1)!

Church discipline must be practiced regardless of the world’s view of it, but, in general, it will have a salutary affect upon the hearts of those whose conscience is tender. The watching world may ridicule disciplinary action, but it respects nothing less.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 579-580
October 4, 1984