Truth Magazine

By Aude McKee

When I saw the overview of the special on “Church Discipline,” I was impressed with the completeness of the assigned topics, and I look forward to reading the other articles in this issue. At the same time, I observed that, probably, of all the topics to be considered, this one on “The Joy of Restoration” has been neglected more by those of us who preach than any other. Recently, I heard a speaker say that “we often hear Paul quoted on discipline: ‘Put away the wicked man from among yourselves’ (1 Cor. 5:13); ‘Mark them that are causing the division and occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and turn away from them’ (Rom. 16:17); ‘Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly’ (2 Thess. 3:6). But we seldom hear 2 Corinthians 2 applied to the same subject. This passage is essential because if our attitude is not right, our action will not be right! “

Those Who Take The Action

This quote just taken from a speech made by Peter Wilson, and the impact of Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 2, has to do with the attitude of those who have withdrawn their fellowship from an erring brother or sister. Unless the action has been undertaken with the proper motive and in the right spirit, fervent, sincere joy cannot follow when the sinner repents. We recognize, of course, that Paul wrote by inspiration (1 Cor. 2:6-16), but how consistent it was for him to speak to them in the second chapter of the second letter about their attitude toward the erring brother who had repented. The whole of the first letter was directed toward correcting mistakes. Sharp rebuke was aimed at these Corinthians regarding a number of things. But the rebuke and the plea for correction came from a heart filled with love. It is interesting to note that after the first letter was written, Paul left Ephesus and came to Troas to preach the gospel, and in his own words, “A door opened unto me of the Lord” (2 Cor. 2:12-13). But he was so disturbed over the reception of the letter that he “had no rest in his spirit.” He didn’t know if the Corinthians would rebel or be humble and repent. But he was so deeply concerned over their spiritual welfare that he couldn’t even preach the gospel until he learned of their attitude. What we are saying is, when an action is taken against a sinner with the love Paul had for the Corinthians, nothing but fervent, sincere joy can follow in the wake of repentance.

1 Corinthians 5 deals with a terrible moral problem within the Corinthian church. One of the members was living with his father’s wife and the church had taken no action against the erring brother. The Holy Spirit’s command is “deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Furthermore, instructions were given “not to keep company” and “with such an one no not to eat” (v. 11). The Corinthians obeyed the Spirit’s instructions – they delivered the erring brother to Satan by withdrawing from him, and the action had the desired effect. The erring brother repented, and this occasioned the teaching of 2 Corinthians 2. “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many, so that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him” (vv. 7,8).

Five words in this passage need emphasis. First, the action taken was “sufficient.” It was enough! Any time we do what we are told to do in God’s Word, that is sufficient. Doing more than we are told brings sin (2 John 9-11). These Corinthians could not (with God’s approval) do anything that would add to the man’s burden. The second word worthy of special consideration is “contrariwise.” This word indicates a 180 degree turn from the idea of inflicting more “punishment” on the sinner who had repented. The New King James Version says, “on the contrary.” Now, the direction these brethren are to take after they had completely turned from the idea of inflicting even more censure is to “forgive” and “comfort” and these two words need emphasis. Does the Lord, when He forgives us, then lay extra burdens on us? Does He, when we try to get up, knock us down another time or two in order to impress the gravity of the sin we committed? The truth is that “as far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us” (Psa. 103:12). In defining the word “comfort,” the dictionary says, “to soothe in time of grief or fear; to console . . . help, assistance.” The sinner who has repented needs help, assistance and consolation. And if he does not receive it, it may be, as Barclay says, “the last push into the arms of Satan.” Then the word “confirm” or “reaffirm” (NKJ) is important. Let our action toward the sinner who has repented be such that our love for him is proven. Let there be no doubt in his mind that we are deeply concerned for him, and certainly the joy we manifest at his restoration will be one of the confirming signs of our love.

Matters of Judgment

At this point in our discussion of the erring child of God, his repentance and confession of sin and our joy at his restoration, comes a difficult problem that occasionally results in differences of opinion and confusion. If he is not immediately given back all of his former responsibilities in the local church, does that mean that those responsible have not really forgiven? Is this an indication that their joy at his restoration has been hypocritical?

To make a concrete illustration, suppose it is discovered that the treasurer of a local church has been skimming the contribution and about $10,000 has been stolen. When he is confronted with his sin, he repents, confesses before the church, and makes arrangements to gradually replace the amount that was stolen. If the elders then decide to give another deacon the responsibilities of being treasurer, have the elders committed sin? Are they duty bound to let the erring brother retain his “job” in order to obey the command to “forgive,” “comfort,” and “confirm their love”?

We believe the story Jesus told in Luke 15 certainly has a direct bearing on “The Joy of Restoration,” and there may be some implications in the story that would help us with the problem under consideration. The joy that heaven has “over one sinner that repenteth” is made clear in the story of the lost coin, the lost sheep, and even more impressively in the return of the prodigal son. And our attitude must not be that of the older brother. Our love must come out of a pure heart and our joy must be unfeigned. When the prodigal son “came to himself,” his attitude was, “I will arise and go to my father, and I will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.” This boy was humble! He did not come home looking to be given the responsibilities he had when he left. To him, being taken back by his father with outstretched arms, and being restored to his home as a son and not a servant, was surely beyond his fondest expectations! He could have cared less what jobs his father would see fit to give him. Would not his humility have demanded that he be grateful, rather than his restoration being the basis for demands on his father? And would not the jobs or responsibilities his father gave him upon his return be a matter of judgment? No one can read these lines without seeing the reasoning involved which, if we be correct, simply illustrates that these matters involve judgment decisions resting on the elders.

The Joy of Being Restored

There is not a Christian reading these lines but what knows personally the joy of restoration. None of us may have stolen from the church treasury or killed in the heat of passion, but all of us have sinned. And what greater joy can one have in this life than to feel the load of guilt lifted and replaced with a close communion with God? What child of God has not at one time or another, gone to bed at night sick at heart over some thing, said or done, unbecoming to a Christian? And then comes the decision to make it right with the person involved and with God. Following this, a prayer reminiscent of David’s plea in Psalms 51, and the result is joy unspeakable and a peace that passes understanding. The story of the wayward son in Luke 15 does not mention the joy of this boy when his father took him back, but it was unnecessary. It will come as surely as day follows night. What we need to learn and continually have impressed on our hearts is that there is no communion with God in a “far country,” that the way home must be preceded by the decision to go back and confess, that the good intentions must be put in action, and finally, that once we start back, God is there to welcome us, and every saint with a pure heart will rejoice in our return.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 588-589
October 4, 1984

By Weldon E. Warnock

To decide whether one church may withdraw fellowship from another church, we must determine whether there is any fellowship that exists between churches. Fellowship cannot be withdrawn if there is no fellowship. Defining “fellowship” and showing how it is used in the New Testament will help us resolve the matter.

Definition of Fellowship

There are four original Greek words that are equivalent to the English word “fellowship.”

The first Greek word is koinonia (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 8:4; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:9; Phil. 1:5; 2:1; 3:10; 1 Jn. 1:3,6,7). It is translated “fellowship” 12 times in the New Testament, “communion” 4 times, “distribution” 1 time, “communication” 1 time, and “contribution” 1 time.

Thayer states that koinonia means “fellowship, association, community, communion, joint-participation, intercourse; 1. the share which one has in anything, participation. . . . 2. intercourse, fellowship, intimacy. . . . 3. a benefaction jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship. . . ” (p. 352).

Ardnt-Gingrich define koinonia: ” 1. association, communion, fellowship, close relationship. . . . 2. generosity, fellow feeling, altruism. . . . 3. sign of fellowship, proof of brotherly unity, even gift, contribution. . . . 4. participation, sharing . . . in something” (p. 440).

The second Greek word is koinonos. It is translated “partaker” 5 times, “partner” 3 times and “companion” I time. Harper states, “a fellow, partner, Matt. 23:30; Lk. 5:10; 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phile. 17: Heb. 10:33; a sharer, partaker. 2 Cor. 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:4” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 235). Thayer says, “a partner, associate, comrade, companion . . . . a partaker, sharer, in anything. . . ” (p. 352).

The third word is koinoneo. It is translated “be partaker” 4 times, “communicate” 2 times, “be made partaker of” 1 time, and “distribute” 1 time. Thayer states, “to come into communion or fellowship, to become a sharer, be made a partner . . . . to enter into fellowship, join one’s self as an associate, make one’s self a sharer or partner. . . ” (pp. 351-352). Other Greek authorities say the same, in essence, as Thayer.

The fourth Greek word is metoche. This word is translated “fellowship” 1 time. Thayer defines it to mean, “a sharing, communion, fellowship. . .”(p. 407. Ardnt-Gingrich say, “share, have a share, participate” (p. 515).

From these definitions, we can readily see that “fellowship” is a participation, having a share, giving a share, a common interest and intimacy of association. Instances of these diversities of meanings in the Scriptures are: (1) sharing or participation (1 Cor. 1:9; 10: 16; 2 Cor. 8:4; 13:13; Eph. 3:9; Phil. 2: 1; 3: 10); (2) common interest and intimacy of association (Acts. 2:42; 2 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 2:9; Phil 1:5; 1 John 1:3,6,7) and (3) collection or contribution (Rom. 15:25; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; Heb. 13:16). These three divisions fully reflect the word “fellowship” in its noun form as used in the New Testament.

Scope of Fellowship

It is ascertained from the preceding Scriptures and definitions that fellowship exists between or among:

(1) Individual Christians. The disciples at Jerusalem continued in fellowship with one another (Acts 2:42). Heinrich Meyer says fellowship in this passage “is to be explained of the mutual brotherly association which they sought to maintain with one another” (Acts of the Apostles, p. 68).

(2) Individual Christians and congregations. Philippi had fellowship with Paul in the furtherance of the gospel (Phil. 1:5). They contributed or communicated with Paul in providing his necessities as he preached the gospel. “Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated (had fellowship) with me as concerning the giving and receiving, but ye only” (Phil. 4:15).

(3) Individual Christians and the Godhead. A Christian has fellowship with God the Father. “And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ…. If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie. . . . But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. . .” (1 Jn. 1:3,6,7).

A Christian has fellowship with Jesus the Christ. “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9).

A Christian has fellowship with the Holy Spirit. “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit. . .” (Phil. 2:1).

Hence, a Christian shares in the benefits and blessings which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit provide.

(4) Congregations. Congregations have fellowship with each other in ministering to the needs of the saints. Paul wrote concerning the churches in Macdeonia, “Praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4). Compare 2 Corinthians where koinonia is translated “distribution.”

Observations And Deductions

In light of the foregoing authoritative definitions, statements, and declarations, the following observations and deductions can be made:

(1) Churches may have fellowship with one another in the sense of sharing, that is, giving and receiving of funds for the relief of needy saints. This fellowship was only practiced when there was a need and terminated when the need was satisfied. Under some circumstances, a congregation might cease sharing its abundance with another congregation, thereby severing fellowship.

For example, if the receiving congregation would be improperly using the funds for the destitute, or if the church began practicing error, fellowship should stop. Of course, these hypothetical cases are envisioned as possibilities where there would be a prolonged need of benevolence.

(2) Churches may have fellowship with one another in association and common interest. For instance, the elders of congregation A might decide to dismiss the Wednesday night service, and all of them go to congregation B to support the brethren in their gospel meeting. This is intimacy of association and would be fellowship as defined above. If congregation B became digressive in doctrine and practice, then congregation A could (and, should) withdraw fellowship (association) from congregation B and no longer recognize it as a faithful church.

(3) Churches should not withdraw association from another church simply because of some isolated act of which they do not approve. For example, there is no basis or reason for church A to refrain from association with church B simply because church B accepts a brother into its membership whom church A deems unfaithful. The elders in church B believe the brother to be faithful. Are they to bow to the request and pressure of church A? The Bible teaches self-rule of each congregation, and we need to respect this principle.

Too, when a congregation withholds association from another congregation for the preceding reason, as several churches have done, they may be withholding association from some of God’s most faithful children who help compose that church. This is wrong!

When churches start withholding their association (fellowship) from another church that does not meet their expectations, it will not be long until they find themselves in total isolation. In their eyes they are the only sound church in the community. Such is a self-righteous attitude that has no place among New Testament Christian.

(4) Churches should honor another church’s scriptural withdrawal and not use or receive into membership the brother who has been disciplined until he or she repents and confesses his sin. Individual members of all faithful churches should have no company with them. “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). This divine injunction would have applied whether the erring brother was a member at Thessalonica or not. All in Christ have a common relationshp with one another, and when scriptural disciplinary action is taken by one church, all churches should respect it, and all indvidual Christians should stop having social intercourse with those who have been chastened.

(5) Churches should mark and avoid all false teachers, regardless of where they are members. Paul teaches this in Romans 16:17-18. A false brother (Gal. 2:4) who is sowing discord and spreading heresies among God’s people should be rejected and repudiated publicly in every faithful congregation which may be threatened. Such person would never be used in any capacity in the worship and work of the church. Of course, this is a church dealing with an individual and not another congregation.

(6) Finally, churches have no fellowship with one another in the sense of joint-participation where autonomy and equality are surrendered. There is no authority for organic ties of fellowship among churches. The New Testament knows nothing about such arrangement, and if congregations establish fellowship under such order, they sin.

From this viewpoint one church cannot discipline or withdraw fellowship from another church, as they do individuals among themselves, because no fellowship exists. The only fellowship which can be withdrawn is distribution of funds and intimacy of association.

We trust this study has been helpful and beneficial to you. Let us all continue to study this vital theme with forbearance and love toward one another.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 593-594
October 4, 1984

By Frank Jamerson

In the Great Commission, Jesus taught that a person must believe, repent and be baptized in order to be saved (Matt. 28:1820; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:47). When men who believe in salvation by faith only hear these passages, they usually ask, “What about the thief on the cross?” They never consider the chief of sinners. Let us take a look at some facts about both.

First, the thief on the cross did not live under the law of Christ. “For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth” (Heb. 9:16,17). The thief was blessed by Jesus before His testament, or will, went into effect. After the death of Christ, we must conform to the conditions in the testament in order to be blessed.

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; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10: 9, 10). The thief did not believe that God had “raised Jesus from the dead,” because He had not! If you can be saved like the thief, you can be saved without believing that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Third, the thief could not be “buried by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Jesus had not died or been raised when the thief was saved. The teaching of Romans 6:3-5 did not apply to the thief. It does to you!

Now, look at the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15).

First, he lived under the law of Christ. The first mention we have of Saul is when he was keeping the garments of those who stoned Stephen to death (Acts 7:18). This was after the Lord had arisen from the dead and ascended into heaven. In the ninth chapter of Acts we read of his journey to Damascus, the appearance of the Lord to him, and his conversion. Saul lived under the law of Christ; so do we.

Second, Saul became a believer in the resurrection of Jesus. He wrote the Corinthians: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Saul had been a persecutor of Christians, because he did not believe in Jesus, but when the great light shined on him, and he heard the voice of the Lord, he changed his faith! He was not saved on the road to Damascus, but he certainly became a believer in the resurrected Lord at that time (Acts 9:1-6).

Third, Saul, who became the apostle Paul, was baptized into the death of Christ. When Ananias went to him, he said: “And how why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). When Paul wrote the book of Romans, he included himself among those who had been baptized into Christ. “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3).

The conversion of Saul shows that he believed in the resurrected Lord, repented of his sins, and was baptized “to wash away” his sins, or into the death of Christ. We cannot be saved like the thief on the cross, for he lived before the law of Christ went into effect, did not believe in the resurrected Lord, and could not be buried by baptism into Christ’s death and raised in the likeness of His resurrection. We can be saved like the chief of sinners if we will be believe in Christ, whom God raised from the dead, repent of our sins, and be baptized into the death of Christ, that we may be raised to walk in newness of life.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 567
September 20, 1984

By O.C. Birdwell, Jr.

Before attention is directed to the above subject, some consideration needs to be given to the word “discipline” as it is used in this discussion. In most translations, the word is not found in the New Testament. It must be used, therefore, to describe action taught in the New Testament. This, it seems, is where problems arise. What do we have in mind when we talk about exercising discipline? Numerous definitions are given for the word. Three by Webster are as follows: “(1) To punish or penalize for the sake of discipline; (2) to train or develop by instruction and exercise esp. in self-control; (3) to bring (a group) under control; to impose order upon.”

The common practice of discipline by religious cults seems to be number three, “to bring under control, to impose order upon.” The fear tactics and mass murder of the “Jones cult” of a few years ago illustrate the results of this type discipline. Quite frankly, in this type, this writer wants no part. Yet, it seems, that some have this concept of New Testament discipline. A recent news report stated, in effect, that once one gets into the church of Christ, he cannot get out. This obviously misrepresents the teaching of most, if not all, of the congregations; but I wonder if this is not the impression many leave because of their practice.

A member of the family of God may, of his own free will, join himself to a local church (this is the only way one can join the church [Acts 9:26]). The local church may accept, or reject, such a person. The account in Acts 9 shows both actions. It seems logical that if one may of his free will join himself to a congregation, he may by the same action leave the congregation. One may move to another city. Decision may be made to attend another congregation in the same city. One would have the right to do either. When a Christian leaves one faithful church for another, there should be no stigma attached to him and no resentment toward the congregation where he is accepted. This is often not the practice. Some will never attend another meeting at the receiving church, will be critical of the preacher and/or elders, and speak disparagingly of the one who left. This is a sign of what a good preacher friend was heard to say concerning another subject. “What’s so bad is they accuse us of being cranks, and then prove it on us!” They accuse us of teaching one cannot get out of a local church, and then prove it on some of us.

Is it not also possible for one who loses his faith, or just decides he wants to serve Satan and go to hell, to sever himself, by his own free will, from a congregation? It seems, as we shall show, that the New Testament cases of what we commonly refer to as “church discipline,” deal with those who are a part of the local church and want to so continue.

Our present task is to show how to proceed in administering what we call “church discipline.” In doing this, we will present New Testament accounts of how to deal with the unfaithful and when we see the action in each case, we will see what I mean by “church discipline.” Remember that often how the instructions are carried out is left to the judgment of brethren.

Matthew 18:15-17

“And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone.; if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.”

Here is sin by one brother against another. Jesus tells the wronged brother to go and show the other his fault. With no success, take one or two more. If he refuses to hear them, “tell it unto the church.” The “church” would have to be the local congregation. There is no way one could tell it to the universal church. Notice that he said “tell it to the church.” He did not say tell the preacher, elders, or a business meeting of the men. Nothing is said about writing the person a letter, writing to other churches, or publishing the action in a religious journal.

If he will not hear the church, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. I understand this to mean that he is now to be rejected as a part of the congregation, and is no longer to be in fellowship with the saints. If he goes to another congregation without repentance, it is their obligation to check into his background. This passage tells us how to deal with sin by brother against brother. Other passages relate to the false teacher and the immoral person.

Romans 16:17

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.

“The doctrine which ye learned” would be the teaching received from inspired men like Paul. Those who reject this teaching and cause “divisions and occasions of stumbling” are to be marked and turned away from. A mark is used to identify something or someone. Paul said to mark those who imitate him (Phil 3:17). These would be the righteous and godly who follow after inspired teaching. False teachers, likewise, are to be marked or identified. Not only are they to be identified, but Paul said, “turn away from them.”

This means avoid them. Do not use them as teachers. Do not accept them as faithful brethren into the fellowship of the saints. Any false teacher, anywhere, may be marked, or identified. If he is dispensing false teaching through a national journal or causing divisions and occasions of stumblings in a hush-hush, undercover manner, he should be marked. Brethren need to be informed about the danger. Nothing is said about a personal visit to the false teacher, or about taking one or two more with you. If he is a false teacher, mark him, and avoid him!

1 Corinthians 5:4, 5, 7, 13

“. . .In the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . .Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump. . . .Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.”

Fornicators, the covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, and extortioners are to be put away from the congregation. The fornicator, in this account, obviously wanted to continue in fellowship with the Corinthian church and at the same time commit his sin. It was not a one-time act of which he had repented, but sin in which he was persisting. The church was failing in that they were puffed up, had not mourned, and had taken no action in the matter. Paul commands that the guilty one be delivered unto Satan, or put away from among them. He was no longer to be accepted as a faithful member of the congregation. This action has a two-fold purpose. The guilty will be encouraged to put away his sin that his spirit may be saved, and the sinful leavening agent will be removed from the church. The action is to be taken when the church is “gathered together.” It seems that there could be a special assembly arranged for this action. There is no doubt left about what is to be done, but the administering of the action by the church, as is the case in the Matthew 18 account, will involve human judgment. Let it be good judgment. There is no reason for visitors and non-members to be present when such action is taken. Neither is there any scriptural reason to broadcast the action to the world or to other congregations.

2 Thessalonians 3:6,7, 14, 15

Now 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 they received of us. For yourselves kn o w how ye ought to imitate us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you,. . .And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Command is given that we withdraw ourselves from those who do not walk after the tradition (inspired teaching) delivered by Paul. Such things as refusing to work, being busybodies, and failing to obey Paul’s word by his epistle, are listed as constituting disorderly walk. One who will not obey Paul’s word is to be noted, and there is to be no company with him. This is to the end that he may be ashamed. What we call discipline is here called withdrawing from, noting, and having no company with. No specific administering procedure is given for taking this action. It seems that there would have to be proof of guilt, and then public congregational action and announcement, as was the case in the before mentioned accounts.

There should be a specific charge or charges. I have known of brethren who were withdrawn from with only a charge that they walked disorderly. This is not sufficient. Name the sinful practice, prove the one accused guilty, and if he will not repent, withdraw yourselves from him. This means let him be “as the Gentile and the publican,” or the same as putting him away “from among yourselves.” Have no spiritual fellowship with the person.

Should there be within the congregation a false teacher, immoral person, or one walking disorderly in specified ways, who will not change, or one who has sinned against a brother who will not correct his sin, let him be promptly named to the congregation and, if he still will not correct his ways, let him be immediately regarded as out of fellowship with the church. Should there be those who ask to be no longer a part of the congregation, make a public congregational announcement to that effect. If they go back to the world, or into denominationalism, let everyone do all within their power to teach and convert the sinner from the error of his way (James 5:19). If they go to another faithful church, bid them God’s speed, and wish them well.

My approach to “church discipline” may be, to many, far too simplistic. Possibly so, yet, on the other hand, when we separate human tradition from Bible teaching, what the Bible teaches on the subject is rather easily understood. Also, I fear that some spend too much time discussing and preaching on the kind of discipline under consideration here and much too little time with discipline that involves Bible teaching and instruction which molds, shapes, and guides lives in useful paths of service for God and His Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 582-583
October 4, 1984