Truth Magazine

By Jady W. Copeland

Possibly one of the chief reasons why effective withdrawal from the ungodly among God’s people has not been done is that brethren have convinced themselves that “it won’t work.” In this article, I refer especially to the final step in church discipline–that of the decision to withdraw from those who will not repent. This is really why we withdraw, in a sense, namely because they fail to come back. But we must not get bogged down in semantics.

I am afraid that the expression in our caption is indicative of an attitude–the attitude that says we are afraid of the consequences, or we are afraid of what the brethren will think (or do), or we will “lose them” if we withdraw. It seems ironic to me that this very fear of the brethren’s disapproval of the action is the very principle on which the effectiveness of withdrawal is based. The success of disciplinary action in any fellowship stems from the basic principle that man, being by nature a social being, desires the approval of his fellows. When he realizes that he does not have that approval, he is inclined to re-think his actions. So, for this same reason, many elders and others are reluctant to withdraw because they fear disapproval from the ones that should be withdrawn from their family. They may even fear disapproval from others in the church not in the family.

But again I am afraid that the refusal to withdraw expressed in the statement “it won’t work” is merely an excuse. We simply don’t like the unpleasant task and rationalize that “it won’t work anyway, so why should we withdraw?” Actually they are already “away” from God, else why would we be withdrawing? But should we not be concerned about disapproval from God? That must be our first concern.

If discipline doesn’t work, it is either the fault of God or man. Surely it is not God’s fault, so that leaves man. If man’s fault, it must be the fault of the person who is withdrawn from or the ones doing the withdrawing. If we are speaking of whether or not it works (meaning restoring them to the faith), it is often the “fault” of the sinner, as some can never be restored (Heb. 6:6). But in this article, we speak of the attitude of brethren who should do the withdrawing. And let me make this point before we go further. If “it doesn’t work” and if the sinner is not reclaimed, we should not be discouraged any more than if we fail to convert every alien we teach. Regardless of the sinner we are trying to reach (whether or not they have been baptized), they are still sinners and need converting. And we will not convert all in either group. In both cases, the Lord told us to teach and exhort them, and we must do it (2 Thess. 3:13). We have no choice in the matter if we ourselves want to be saved. In the words of the bumper sticker I saw (slightly rearranged), “God said it; that settles it; I believe it.”

Two extremes need to be avoided in withdrawal. First, under the excuse of “love and tolerance,” many brethren seldom if ever withdraw from the ungodly. But on the other hand, there are some that are withdrawal-happy. I was once told by a member of a certain congregation that the elders had decided to withdraw from members if they failed to come to three consecutive services (I assume without good cause). As other articles in this issue show, the purpose of church discipline is to save the lost and, while love and forbearance is truly the proper attitude in this process, the same characteristics will demand that withdrawal finally be done. One extreme may cause bitterness and frustration, while the other can allow sin with impunity. Let us not be extreme in either direction.

Why Withdrawing Hasn’t Worked

Brethren will point to many occasions where everything has gone wrong (seemingly) and say, “See, it doesn’t work,” and so they refuse to withdraw. And, of course, it doesn’t always bring the sinner back. But it may be the fault of those withdrawing. Let us suggest a few reasons why it may not, have worked.

(1) No faith in God’s plan. Could not denominational people point to the unpopularity of baptism and say, “See it doesn’t work” so why demand it? It may be compared to the repeal of prohibition when politicians were saying “it won’t work” (prohibition) when we understand drunkenness and other crimes rose sharply when the law was passed in the ’30s. Paul said, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). This passage and others show clearly that while it may be unpleasant, it is a command of the Spirit and must be done “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” which is pretty plain and positive. Yes it will work (meaning bringing some back) just as preaching the gospel to the alien will work in some cases: All will not be converted – in either group, but shall we quit preaching, teaching, exhorting, reproving and rebuking simply because it does not covert all of them? As we say with reference to preaching to the lost, let’s do our part, believing in God’s plan and leave results to Him.

(2) We often begin with the wrong attitude. The second reason it hasn’t done more good is we go about it in the wrong way and with the wrong attitude. As other articles in the paper will show, disciplining begins long before withdrawal. The final step is preceded by long hours of loving, thoughtful and prayerful teaching, reproof and exhortation. A parent does a lot of the same kine of training before be resorts to spanking. He begins with teaching, prodding, correcting and warning. In too many cases, we have let brethren drift for months, even years, with little or nothing being done, and then suddenly we decide to withdraw. We go through the motion of withdrawing without teaching and admonishing and, of course, it doesn’t work. Let us keep in mind the goal of this procedure is the salvation of a soul; not condemnation.

(3) Little fellowship before withdrawal. When we withdraw from a brother, we are to keep no company with him (2 Thess. 3:14: 1 Cor. 5:9). God’s people are a ” family,” but often we don’t seem to have that attitude toward each other. Many go to worship once a week, then go home until the next week, never seeing anyone between times. They never see one another socially, and very little when they come to the building. I have known of brethren living in the same community for years not knowing even where each other lives. And occasionally, you will hear a brother ask who another brother is (at the services) when both are members of the same group. So they have “fellowship” but very little with each other and, therefore, if one is withdrawn from, there is no change, for they never had any association with them to begin with. Hence any value the matter of withdrawing may have is not realized. If they had nothing to do with each other to start with, what good is an announcement going to do?

(4) Only partially done. Another reason it hasn’t done the good it should have done is that all do not withdraw themselves. Withdrawing must be done on an individual basis. One time it is recorded that a public statement should be made (1 Cor. 5:4) but obviously each individual must withdraw himself if the desired good is to be realized. If relatives and close friends continue to associate with the person, it seems to have two effects. First, it encourages the sinner in his sin and, secondly, it often divides the congregation. One group sides with the sinner, saying others are not fair or they are being too harsh. The others side with the elders (or the ones taking the lead) and so you have a divided condition which causes harsh words, insinuations, impugning of motives and ugly attitudes that do the church no good.

It Will Work

Yes, God knows best and He told us to discipline ourselves. When done property, it will accomplish that which God desires. While it is true that the goal of withdrawal is to save the lost person, there are other reasons for doing so. There are other things which God wants accomplished that has to do with the church as well as the sinner. The church is to be kept pure (1 Cor. 5:6-7) and the good influence of brethren maintained (Rom. 16:18). The withdrawal causes others to fear (1 Tim. 5:20). How many have not been caused to examine their life when they heard elders ask brethren to withdraw from an ungodly person? Also if we fail to discipline the ungodly among us we are guilty of partaking of their evil (2 John 4-11). At the very heart of the process is the idea that we show our disapproval of the sin that has been committed and make an honest attempt to save the person from destruction. We withdraw to show the sinner the sinfulness of his sinful ways (2 Thess. 3:14). Even if we never get him to repent, the brother will surely know that we believe him to be living in sin. We have done out part, just as we can take some comfort in the fact that we hae done our best to convert an alien but he has not responded. It is my duty to discipline; it is his to respond and he will have to meet that in the judgment. I don’t want to face God not having done my duty to an erring brother.

I know discipline will work because it is His plan; it is His will. God doesn’t command us to do something that won’t work. If we have faith in His knowledge, and His wisdom, we cannot afford to question His judgment. Sure we must proceed with love, longsuffering and consideration for the condition of the one involved. But we must proceed. It worked with the case of the fornicator in Corinth (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2 6-8) and it will work with some today. We know it will work because we have seen cases in our lifetime where it has worked and done the good intended. But like bad news that travels farther than good news, maybe we just hear of the many cases where the brother or sister fails to repent.

Yes, brethren, like a loving parent disciplines a child with instruction, helping, reproving and more stern forms of discipline, let us with love and consideration of our own faults fulfill our responsibilities to the erring. God’s plan will work if we work the plan as He directed.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 586-587
October 4, 1984

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