Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

This special issue of Guardian of Truth has been prepared to help Christians deal with a difficult problem-what to do when a Christian departs from the faith and returns to the world. The difficulty in getting brethren to act in discharging their responsibilities toward unfaithful Christians was serious enough prior to the Collinsville, Oklahoma lawsuit which awarded $390,000 to an admitted fornicator who had been withdrawn from by a local church. Now the problem of church discipline is compounded by the threat of lawsuits.

Problems With Church Discipline

Many churches have had problems with disciplining wayward members. I think that describing some of these problems will be helpful in making us aware of what some are going wrong in hopes that some will correct those problems. This will be the case if the problems stem from lack of knowledge or forethought.

1. Some churches simply do not exercise church discipline. There are churches which have never withdrawn from any wayward, unfaithful member. Because the local church has never before practiced church discipline, these brethren are content to continue as they are.

One of the reasons that we should practice church discipline is that Christ commanded it. Paul wrote, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). The instructions to exercise church discipline are emphatic and imperative. We remind our denominational friends that Christ “commanded” baptism and emphasize that they do what Christ said. In a similar manner, we need to be reminded that Christ commanded that a church withdraw from disorderly members. The church which neglects or refuses to practice church discipline toward disorderly members stands in disobedience to the word of God.

The churches at Corinth, Pergamos and Thyatira were condemned because of their toleration of wicked men in their midst (1 Cor. 5; Rev. 2:14,20). Brethren must realize and accept the conclusion that a church which does not practice church discipline stands in disobedience to the word of God.

I have never gotten any pleasure in confronting a sinner with his sins. When a Christian goes to the door of his brother’s house with the intention of discussing his sin with him, he does not know how he will be received. Will he be hated, thrown out of the house, or loved? Despite the fear of rejection, a faithful Christian goes because of his love for the soul of the lost brother (Gal. 6: 1; Jas. 5:19,20). Confronting the sinner with this sin is a God-given obligation; it is not pleasant and enjoyable. Nevertheless, we must do what God says because He commanded it; it is a final effort to win back the erring brother.

2. Some churches are inconsistent in their application of church discipline. Trouble will come to any congregation which tolerates sin in some of its members, and then tries to discipline others for committing the same sins. Those who are influential, rich, or highly respected do not obtain special privileges from the Lord; His judgment is without respect of persons (Rom. 2:11). The church should imitate the Lord with respect to its disciplinary action.

When a church shows partiality in its administration of disciplinary action, discipline will be viewed as a tool to be used against those whom the leaders dislike. Resentment, bitterness, and strife will be caused by this sort of practice. The friends of the “victim” will feel forced to rise up in defense of a known sinner because of the inconsistent manner in which discipline has been administered.

Sometimes churches are faced with this problem as a result of their failures in administering any discipline at all. The church may have gone for years without administering discipline and then realize that they have been violating God’s word by their action. After they repent of their neglect, the first case of discipline will likely charge that partiality has been practiced in regard to the administration of church discipline. The only thing that the church can do in such a case is to admit its previous failures and begin from that point to practice church discipline without partiality.

3. Some churches use poor judgment in administering church discipline. I have known of churches waiting for long periods of time after the sinner has fallen away before doing anything to help save the soul of the fallen man. If a weak Christian returns to sin, he should be helped immediately. Those who are spiritual should seek to help the brother who is overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6: 1). Men should pray with and for him. They should do everything possible to restore him as quickly as possible. If all of this fails, the church should take action.

To wait for months (or even a year or more) before reading a formal announcement of withdrawal destroys the good which can be accomplished in church discipline. By that time, the sinner has already become used to having no fellowship with the saints and has become comfortable with the scornful. The discipline should be administered in such a period of time that the break in fellowship with the saints will have some impact on causing him to consider repentance.

Reading a letter months after a sinner has quit attending worship and has become involved in sin appears to have the effect of the church washing its hands of the matter. Some brethren reason something like this: The man was once on the church rolls. He does not come here any more. He never moved his membership anywhere else. What are we going to do with him? We will read a letter announcing that we are withdrawing fellowship from him.

The question is not whether or not the man should be disciplined. The question is whether or not the manner in which the disciplined was administered did what the Lord designed church discipline to do. Such poor use of judgment probably does neither the church nor the sinner any good. The sinner is not urged to repent; the church has made no genuine effort in the use of its discipline to call the man to repentance.

Another kind of sinful action in administering church discipline is that which is done without prior efforts to restore the brother. Some elders make little or no effort to visit the erring before “leading” the church in administering church discipline. Elders should be examples to the rest of the flock (1 Pet. 5:3) in the kind of effort which should be made to restore the lost brother. Elders should personally talk to the erring brother-reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with meekness and love. The eldership should seek the opportunity to sit down with the wayward brother and bring him to repentance.

When little or no effort has been made to reclaim the lost brother, the discipline which has been administered will be viewed as that which comes from lack of love. He may believe that the church was glad to get rid of him. He may think that the members did not care about him (and he may be right). Instead of feeling this way, the erring brother should understand that the disciplinary action was taken because concerned Christians were seeking to save him from sin.

4. Sometimes the church rebels against church discipline which has been impartially and fairly administered. Not even in New Testament times did all of the congregation unite in administering church discipline (2 Cor. 2:6-“the many”). Sometimes individual members may not back the church in its disciplinary action because of one reason or another. However, on some occasions, the congregation rebels against the elders who led the congregation in administering church discipline.

I have known of some congregations which had to remove a preacher from the pulpit. His subsequent action was factious. In an effort to keep this preacher from dividing the local church, the elders announced to the congregation that the man was seeking to divide the congregation by gathering sympathizers who would go with him to start a new congregation. They warned brethren to avoid the man and withdrew from him. On some occasions, the church has split anyway. Rather than supporting the eldership in their disciplinary action, the church rebelled against it.

There are, no doubt, occasions when the eldership errs in how to administer church discipline; perhaps they even err in withdrawing from someone whom they should not discipline. In such cases, the last thing which the church needs to do is to compound its problem by adding a division to the list of problems. God-fearing Christians need to work together to solve their problems. Work with the elders to show them wherein they have erred; pray with them and for them, seeking to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

5. Some problems are caused between churches as a result of one church withdrawing for a brother and another church receiving him. In some towns, one church will not announce another church’s meetings, call on any of its members for prayer, or otherwise recognize another church because one church withdrew from a man and the other church received him. The result is that one church withdraws from another church.

There seems to be several things which can be said about this problem. One is that the receiving church should investigate a member who is seeking to identify with them. A church sometimes thinks that it has done this by simply talking to the individual seeking membership. The wise man writes, “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him” (Prov. 18:17). Hearing only one side of the disagreement makes one believe every word the individual told. When a congregation hears that q man had trouble at another congregation, the very least that the congregation could do was to seek to find out the other side of the matter.

We have developed such a concept of congregational autonomy that one eldership cannot even ask another eldership why it acted in a certain way without someone thinking that some kind of inter-congregational organization has been created. When a brother seeks to identify with a congregation from another congregation in the city, wisdom would recommend that the receiving church at least contact the church from which they are leaving to make sure that the members are not trying to circumvent some kind f disciplinary action by moving their membership.

The other side of this coin is that a church which withdraws from a member who is received by another church sometimes tries to persuade that church to also withdraw from the erring member. If the receiving church does not do so, they withdraw fellowship from the receiving church. Suppose the receiving church has totally erred in the matter. Are we to conclude that because they erred in this one matter at the present time (if the member is as wicked as the other church imagined, the receiving church will soon find that out), that the other church should cut off all contact with them? Would any of us suggest withdrawing from another church which made one other error? I am afraid that some strong-willed people have attempted to dominate, not only one local congregation, but an entire city in such situations.

A little common sense and common courtesy toward one another would go a long way toward easing tensions of this nature. If a receiving congregation in the same city heard that there were problems at another congregation, the elders could call to inquire about them when a member from that troubled congregation sought to identify with their congregation. This could be done without seeking to enter into the affairs of another congregation. They could suggest that any members who moved their membership at the time of this trouble would first be sure that whatever problems they had with the other church were corrected or that effort had been made to correct them before receiving these members. On the other hand, if a congregation were in the process of withdrawing from a member, and he ran off to another congregation, the elders of that congregation could contact the receiving church and explain to them what had occurred in a spirit of meekness and gentleness-not in a spirit of demanding that the receiving church act in any particular fashion. Brotherly relations could be enhanced by such common sense and common courtesy.

Conclusion

These and many other problems face local congregations in exercising church discipline. Because the problems are serious and a threat to God’s people, this special issue has been prepared. The writers hope that everyone will be encouraged by this material to follow God’s word in working to restore those who have turned back into the world.

Guardian of Truth XXIII: 19, pp. 578, 596-597
October 4, 1984

By Irvin Himmel

A number of New Testament passages bear directly on our attitudes and actions toward people from whom we have withdrawn. This article assumes that proper procedures have been followed prior to the withdrawal. When the withdrawal becomes a reality, what then?

“As an Heathen Man and a Publican”

In Matthew 18:17, Jesus said concerning a brother who has wronged another and refuses to correct the matter, even after it has been brought to the attention of the church and he neglects to hear the church: “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

This means that “he is to be treated as we properly treat heathen men and publicans, or men of wicked habits” (J.W. McGarvey). Such a person “must be considered as an incorrigible sinner, whose company and conversation being contagious, ought to be shunned by all who have any love of goodness. . . ” (James Macknight).

This does not suggest that we should refuse to speak to the person if we meet him on the street. It does not justify our acting in an uncivil manner toward him. “He is to be avoided; yet he is entitled to the earnest good will, and all the offices of humanity; the faithful disciples of Christ are to have no religious communion with him until he repents” (H. Leo Boles).

The one from whom the faithful have withdrawn due to persistence in evil is to be regarded as an outcast, but he is not to be hated and despised. He is no more to be regarded as in fellowship with God and the faithful than a pagan or a crooked tax-collector.

“Avoid”

In Romans 16:17, Paul admonished the saints to “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

“Avoid” (Gk. ekk1ino ) means “to turn away from, to turn aside, lit., to bend out of” (W.E. Vine). It means not only to “keep out of their way, but remove from it if you fall in with them” (Marvin Vincent). The sense is: “have nothing to do with them” (R.C.H. Lenski).

The brother who has been disfellowshipped for causing divisions and offenses through teaching contrary to the doctrine of the apostles, and sometimes this is the specific reason for withdrawal, is not be sanctioned. People who cause divisions and stumbling in the manner under consideration are to be avoided “by refusing to recognize and associate with them as brethren” (David Lipscomb). Paul was calling for separation. “It was a separation of true brethren from false; and, without a reformation, it was final” (Moses E. Lard).

“Reject”

A term of somewhat similar meaning was used by Paul in Titus 3: 10 where we are told how to deal with heretics. “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.”

The word “reject” (Gk. paraitou ) is from a verb meaning “to ask of one and then to beg off from one” (A.T. Robertson). It means to “decline, refuse, avoid” (Marvin Vincent). “There seems to be a reference here to Matthew 18:15-17. Official exclusion from church-membership is probably indicated” (William Hendriksen).

“Not to Keep Company … No Not to Eat”

In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Paul taught that we are “not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. “

This passage clearly forbids our mixing together with the disfellowshipped in an intimate and habitual manner. Whatever implies endorsement must be avoided.

“When we reflect that our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, and that Paul regards it as permissible to accept invitations to eat in heathen homes (x. 27), the detailed aoplication of this injunction is not easy. But the principle is plain. There is to be no close fellowship with anyone who claims to be a Christian, but whose life belies his profession. ” (Leon Morris).

Marshall E. Patton offers some pertinent comments on this passage in his fine book Answers For Our Hope:

“The phrase ‘no not to eat’ is in apposition to ‘not to keep company’ found in the same verse (also v.9). This means that the expression explains further what is involved in ‘not to keep company.’ Since Paul says ‘not to keep company’ does not apply to the world (v. 10), it follows that the eating forbidden is eating engaged in with the world, hence, a common meal. The idea is to preclude any social communion with a brother that would imply encouragement and endorsement of evil.”

“Count Him Not As An Enemy”

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul gave commandment to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly.” “Withdraw” signifies “the withdrawing into oneself, a holding oneself aloof from the offender in question. This is not to be done in a spirit of superiority” (Leon Morris).

In verses 14 and 15 Paul said, “and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

The companying that is forbidden “seems not itself to mean the absolute ignoring of the delinquent, but the refusal to hold free intercourse or have familiar dealings with him” (J.B. Lightfoot). So far as religious communion or sharing is concerned, he is “as an heathen man and a publican.” Any social communion that implies sanction or lends encouragement to his wickedness is forbidden.

But when we let him know that we are withdrawing from him due to his having broken the fellowship, we should admonish him “as a brother.” We must guard against improper measures. He is not to be considered as a personal enemy. The object of withdrawal is to make him ashamed.

“Receive Him Not . . . Neither Bid Him God Speed”

John taught (2 John 9-11) on how lovers of the truth should act toward false teachers – men who abide not in the doctrine of Christ. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

The principle taught here would apply to all who have been disfellowshipped for not abiding in the teaching of Christ. They are not to be encouraged, aided, nor endorsed. This has no reference to people with whom we may have differences of judgment or opinion. John writes about people who clearly advance beyond Christ’s teaching.

One of the most difficult questions relating to our conduct toward the disfellowshipped pertains to the physical family. If a teenage daughter who still lives at home is disfellowshipped for refusing to repent of fornication, must she be kicked out of the house? David Lipscomb reasoned: “A daughter does not cease to be a daughter when she is guilty of fornication. The duty still rests on the mother to do what she can to save her daughter. If refusing to eat with her or driving her from home would help to save her from her sinful course, the mother should do it. If it would dishearten her, discourage her, and drive her deeper and more surely into sin, it would be wrong for her to send her away” (Queries And Answers , pp. 181, 182).

Personally, I do not view the withdrawal of ourselves from the ungodly as shutting out the fulfillment of duties in the husband-wife relationship, parent-child relationship, or other relationships that pertain to physical ties. However, this brings us to matters involving judgment.

There is a certain area of common sense that must be exercised in determining how long someone should be admonished before there is a withdrawal. in the case of the heretic, the Bible provides the answer. “If two admonitions will not stop the factious man he should be rejected at once. The more time he has the more trouble he will make” (R.L. Whiteside), Reflections). In other types of cases, more admonitions may be in order.

The same is true of our conduct toward the disfellowshipped. We may sum up what the Bible teaches in this way: We are forbidden to have religious and social communion with him or to do anything that would sanction, encourage, or lend support to his sinful course. But we must use our best judgment about what to do in various possible circumstances. If he shows any indication of remorse, or if we come in contact with him at work, because of family relations, or quite by chance, additional admonitions may be appropriate.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 581, 599
October 4, 1984