Truth Magazine

By Larry A. Bunch

There are various “kinds” of discipline (or, “degrees”). We will note each one, beginning with the “milder” form of discipline and progressing to the “sterner.”

Public Instruction

Many sins are sins of ignorance. Brethren must be taught in order to do God’s will and avoid sin. This is one of the purposes of the Bible classes and preaching services. This is also why it is so important for brethren to attend all the services of the church.

Not only did Jesus instruct the apostles to “. . . make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them . . . .” but to also “. . . teach(ing) them to observe all that I commanded you. . .” after their conversion (Matt. 28:19-20). All things in the assemblies are to be done for the edification or spiritual building-up of the saints (1 Cor. 14:26). This is one of the purposes of the assembly (Heb. 10:24-25) resulting in better service to God and spiritual growth of the Christian. It will also help them to be able to teach and convert others (2 Tim. 2:2). In Acts 20:7 we have an example of Paul’s public teaching and in verse 20 he declared to the Ephesian elders that he taught them “publicly.”Private Instruction and Exhortation

Not only did Paul teach the Ephesians publicly, but also “from house to house” (Acts 20:20). Many times a Christian may be zealous in his work for God, yet not know the will of God on a particular subject as he should. Then it is necessary to go to him and instruct him privately (see Acts 18:24-28). The fact that one is taught privately is no reflection on them or their character, it simply means that they need instruction they have not received from the public assemblies. It is also possible for one to hear a lesson taught publicly, but not make application of the lesson to himself. So, in our work of admonishing the unruly, encouraging the faint-hearted and helping the weak (1 Thess. 5:14), we go and teach them privately.

Privately Rebuke and Admonish

That private visit (to teach) may not be enough and sterner teaching is then necessary. Or a brother may be involved in a sin that he knows to be sin and a rebuke is called for instead of just teaching. Instead of talking to everyone about our brother’s sin, we go to him privately. It is not wise to parade every sin before the public if it can be handled privately and discreetly (see Luke 17:3; Matt. 18:15).

Public Censure

Gross and brazen sins, committed in open defiance to God and His will, merit public condemnation. You seldom hear someone’s name called from the pulpit or mentioned in the announcements in this light, yet many times it is needful (see 2 Peter 2:13; Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:17; 4:10; 3 John 9).

Social Ostracism

This is usually referred to as “withdrawing of fellowship.” Some object to that term, but it adequately describes the action taken. (If someone in the congregation objects to the use of this term, then I have no objection to referring to it in another way — so long as God’s will is fulfilled in the matter.)

Brethren in Christ have fellowship with one another. As long as one is walking in the light of the Gospel, he has fellowship with others who are doing the same thing and they have fellowship with God (1 John. 1:7). This is a spiritual fellowship and may be true whether one knows the others who are “walking in the light” or not. This is why we should be able to go into any congregation comprised of people serving God according to His will and feel right at home. Another “facet” of fellowship involves joint-participation. This is simply working and worshiping with our brethren in Christ (Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23; Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; etc.).

Although the New Testament usage of the term translated “fellowship” is limited to “communion, fellowship, sharing in common” (W. E. Vine, Vol. 2, p. 90, “Koinonia”), “partnership” (ibid., “metoche”), “to have fellowship” (ibid., “koinoneo”), I believe we can demonstrate that the English definition of the word “fellowship” is applicable to New Testament practice.

“Fellowship” is defined by Webster as: “1. the condition of being an associate; mutual association of persons on equal and friendly terms; communion; companionship; . . . 2. a mutual sharing, as of experience, activity, interest, etc.; partnership; joint interest . . . .

If “fellowship” is to be limited to those things as defined by W. E. Vine or to things peculiarly “spiritual” (?), then why are we not to even eat a meal with a brother living in adultery (1 Cor. 5:11)? May we eat a meal with a brother as long as we do not “fellowship” him in “spiritual” matters? May we associate with the ungodly and false teachers at times other than in a “spiritual” atmosphere (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Tim. 3:5; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 2 John 9-11)?

Since we are to “have no fellowship with” certain brethren, then I affirm that the term “withdraw fellowship” adequately describes this type of action. Since the instruction to “have no fellowship” includes social activities (1 Cor. 5:11), we must “withdraw” from those who claim to have withdrawn themselves from the church. Otherwise, brethren could continue their social activities with the ungodly because they have “withdrawn themselves from the church.” The fornicator could “avoid church discipline” (withdrawing) by “withdrawing” first!

In order to comply with the instructions of the Lord in the matter of church discipline, it is necessary that obstinate sinners be publicly named so brethren can avoid them and have no fellowship with them. For example, if a Christian quits attending the services of the church, then it is the obligation of the brethren to make sure all members of the local congregation are informed concerning the matter so that all social fellowship in process may cease and/or that none might start (Heb. 10:25 and many other passages and principles, with 2 Thess. 3:6). (This, of course, would be done only after efforts were made to restore the erring Christian and it was determined that he or she was determined to continue in their own way regardless of God’s will.) Continued next week.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 357-358
June 9, 1977

By Mike Willis

We are in the throes of another unity movement. This should be encouraging to all who love the Lord; unity of God’s people is not an elusive dream which never can be achieved; it is something which each of us needs to be working to accomplish. Hence, I rejoice that men all over this great country are wanting unity. The ecumenical movement is one of the most obvious signs that many are presently wanting unity.

Unity at any price is something not worth having. America has recently witnessed a “peace-at-any-price” attitude in the settling of the conflict with Viet Nam. Frankly, I have trouble seeing the difference between the kind of “peace” which was obtained there and “defeat.” The ecumenical movement is another “peace-at-any-price” movement, although its main area of concern is with religious controversy. This unity movement has already called a moratorium against evangelizing pagan nations for the reason that they feel that pagan religions have just as much right to exist and stand just as approved before God as does the Christian religion. This movement is nothing less than a surrender to the forces of Satan.

Even as we watch the world around us discussing the problem of unity, we are made aware of the discussion of the subject within the Lord’s church. There is a mini-ecumenical movement in progress among us. The issues at stake are exactly the same ones as in the ecumenical movement facing denominationalism; both movements have the “peace-at-any-price” philosophy. Both movements would rather switch than fight over any doctrine.

Yet all of this discussion forces us to reconsider what is the scriptural foundation for unity. All men can be united upon the basis posited in the word of God. All men, that is, who believe and respect the Bible as the revealed word of God. Frankly, I have no desire for unity with any other kind of men. To those men, the command of Paul applies, “Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:18). I would like to discuss the historical emphasis in the restoration movement toward unity.

Restoration Or Unity?

Recently, I have read several statements which emphasize that the restoration movement split over two fundamental issues, restoration and unity. The liberal group took the unity route; the conservative group took the restoration route. Here is what those quotations said:

“The heart of the liberal-conservative rift was revealed in diverging views of the twofold plea of the movement -restoration of the ancient order and Christian union. To the liberal, Christian union became more and more important. To the conservative, restoration was the church’s central plea and union was only an elusive desideratum” (David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ 1865-1900, p. 8).

In a recent article appearing in Vanguard, Daniel H. King quoted from O. R. Whitley’s Trumpet Call of Reformation as follows:

“Two attitudes were struggling in Alexander Campbell’s mind, and in the mind of Disciples of Christ. This becomes increasingly apparent as the story moves along. One of these, based on the restoration idea, led in the direction of legalism, a religious hardening of the arteries; the other, the unity idea, led in the direction of reassertion of the freedom principles incipient in the original Reformation, and was expressive of the spirit of Locke’s famous Letters on Toleration. Each of these attitudes was to receive its due emphasis, at varying times, depending upon the needs of the moment. . .Significantly in the later development of Disciples, the liberals’ have followed the ‘we-must-be-free’ idea. The extreme conservatives have tended to support the `there-is-nothing-new’ contention” (as quoted in Vanguard, December 9, 1976, p. 7).

In conclusion, Daniel said, “The spirit of the restoration movement is not and has never been the ecumenical spirit. The two are not in the least related. Therefore, if in the final analysis we must face the alternative `Unity or Restoration?’, then for my part at least, I shall without the slightest reservation choose restoration.”

But, does the restoration principle demand that we choose between unity and restoration? According to those who are writing today, one must choose whether or not the restoration of the New Testament church is more important than the unity of the church. Such has not always been the case.

Unity Through Restoration

Though there may be a certain tension between unity and restoration, those in the early efforts to restore New Testament Christianity understood that unity could be attained only through the restoration of primitive, firstcentury Christianity. Typical of the statements made concerning this is that which was made by James Alexander Haldane, one of the men who had a major influence on the thought of Alexander Campbell. He said,

“The importance of uniformity amongst Christians, is not only evident in itself, but has been allowed in every age since the Reformation. Good men have lamented the differences which have subsisted, and which have not only occasioned strife amongst themselves, but have also given infidels a handle to reject and ridicule all religion. Various plans have been devised for promoting uniformity; but all these, as might be expected, have failed. Indeed the success of such plans was not in itself desireable. It could only have taken place, by churches giving way to one another’s prejudices. It is necessary, in common life, sometimes to give up what we know to be our right, for the sake of peace or some greater advantage. But such conduct respecting religion is not countenanced in the word of God. Every one must be fully persuaded in his own mind, and no evil is to be done that good may come. We must by no means encroach on the liberty given to every church to walk according to their own light. If we endeavor to model one church after the example of another now existing, we shall make little progress unless authority be employed, and in this case our zeal is not according to knowledge, our weapons are carnal. But if a model exist in the New Testament, by which all churches ought to be regulated; if each be occupied in imitating this, they will gradually approach nearer to each other; and thus the numberless sects and parties which dishonour the religion of Jesus, will be at an end. When a number of children are taught to write by one master, we expect to see a resemblance in their handwriting. This naturally arises from each copying the writing of the master, to whom all look up; but what progress could be expected if they were employed in copying from each other, or in quarrelling who wrote best” (A View of the Social Worship and Ordinances Observed by the First Christians, pp. 33-35).

Many other such quotations could be taken from the sermon outline books of those who have written regarding the subject of unity and who were early leaders in the effort to restore New Testament Christianity. All of them understood that unity was to be obtained through the restoration of first century church.

The quotation of the speech made by Brother James Adams in the Arlington Meeting has been much misunderstood because brethren apparently did not grasp this very point. Brother Adams, however, made himself very clear in the early part of his speech. He said,

“At this point, I should like to reemphasize a fact which has previously been stated; namely, unity is not an end within itself. I believe this was one of the mistakes made in the so-called ‘restoration movement.’ Brethren, If they did not believe it, often preached and wrote so as to give the Impression that they considered unity an end within itself. I believe that many of us today regard unity as an end within Itself. As I have grown older as a preacher of the gospel, I have become more concerned with getting men to whom I preach to do the will of God. If all of us conform our lives and teaching to the will of God, we will have unity. Hence I am more concerned about this than I am about unity. This does not mean I am not concerned about unity. I would not be here today if I were not. But I am more concerned about getting men to do the will of God. This is an end within itself. Unity is a by-product of this, hence I am more interested In the (cause than in the effect” (The Arlington Meeting, pp. 393-394).

One could almost get the impression that some have intentionally overlooked the original context of Brother Adam’s speech in their quotation of what he had to say about unity.

Why Has Division Occurred?

If the early restorers understood that unity was to be obtained through the restoration of the early church, why then has division occurred so often within our ranks? This is not an easy question to answer and perhaps the answer which I am going to suggest is too simplistic. However, I believe that this is what has caused our divisions and intend to say so.

The churches have been divided because brethren loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren and the Lord. Historically, this can be substantiated. The churches were united until some “progressive” brethren decided to bring in the mechanical instruments of music and to build missionary societies which were to be supported from the treasury of the local church. When conscientious brethren objected to these innovations, the liberals chose their innovations over their brethren. Apparently, they loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren. Later, when the liberals among us introduced the sponsoring church concept of evangelism and the church support of benevolent institutions and colleges, conscientious brethren again objected. The liberals, however, chose these innovations above their brethren; apparently, they loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren.

However, notice what has occurred in each of these divisions. The foundation principle which had initially caused them to be united was laid aside in order “to advance” the gospel. Being discontent with the organization, work, and worship which were found in the New Testament, the groups went out on their own to devise their own organizations, works, and worship. Conscientious brethren could not accept the things which they devised and were, ;therefore, forced to separate from them.A New Unity Movement

A new unity movement is in progress among the churches today. However, each of us should recognize that a different basis for unity is being suggested in this new movement than was suggested by the restoration principle. Whereas the restoration principle said that we can be united when all of us go back to the New Testament and become like the model church of the New Testament, the new unity movement says that we can have “unity in diversity.” My brethren, any movement towards unity which does not allow discussion and change regarding the matters which originally divided us is naive and destined to failure. We simply cannot be united until that which is divided us is removed. Any union which might be obtained would compromise the convictions of one group or the other.

However, there is a way to have unity. We can all go back to the Bible and become more and more like the church which we read about in it and we will inevitably become more and more like one another. Unity will be the blessed by-product of our return to the Bible. We do not have to choose between unity and restoration; unity can only be obtained through the restoration of the New Testament church.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 355-357
June 9, 1977

By Don R. Hastings

You may think that this subject is not very important, but it is one that produces an argument in almost every Bible class when it is discussed. I have been accused of not believing what the Bible taught because I said that the word “corn”, found in the King James Version, has reference to grain. Many brethren, when they see the word “corn” in the King James Version, naturally think of corn as we know it. But, does the word “corn” have reference to what we call “corn”? We should want to know and teach the truth in all matters.

Albert Barnes, in his commentary, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, makes this statement while commenting on Matthew 12:1: “The word corn, as used in our translation of the Bible, has no reference to maize, or Indian corn, as it has with us. Indian corn was unknown till the discovery of America, and it is scarcely probable that the translators knew anything of it. The word was applied, as it is still in England, to wheat, rye, oats, and barley. This explains the circumstance that they rubbed it in their hands, (Luke VI. 1,) to separate the grain from the chaff.” In England, the word “corn” is a general term for grain. This explains why the King James translators translated the Hebrew and Greek word for grain as “corn”. The American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version and many other versions will invariably use the word “grain” where the King James has the word “corn”.

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24) The passage reveals clearly that the word “corn” has reference to grain as it is translated in the American Standard and other versions.

All this means that the disciples did not eat raw corn, but wheat or barley. Pharaoh did not dream of “seven ears of corn” as we think of corn, but “seven ears of grain” which was probably wheat (Genesis 41:5). Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt to buy wheat, not what we call “corn”.

While on this subject, let us notice another misunderstood passage. In Luke 15:16, we read of the prodigal son’s desire to eat “the husks that the swine did eat”. I wondered for a long time how anyone could be hungry enough to want to eat corn-husks. Now I know that the Greek word translated “husks” has reference to “the pods of the carob tree”. (See the footnote in the American Standard Version.) William Smith, in his book, A Dictionary of the Bible, describes these pods and tells how the seeds were used as food by poor people and swine.

After I had enlightened a Bible class on this important matter, Sister Meta Given, who is the author of a cookbook, came to me and asked if I had ever eaten carob. I assured her that I had not. So she invited my family to her house for a carob drink, which was like hot chocolate, and some carob cake. She said that the carob looks and tastes something like chocolate, but that it is better for you. If you want what the prodigal son wanted, you can get it in most health food stores.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, p. 354
June 9, 1977

By Larry A. Bunch

The subject of “church discipline” is often a neglected and misunderstood one. Many times when churches “act” on this matter, they do so in haste with little or no preparation. Consequently, many times harm is done and brethren are embittered against the church acting in this realm. Our purpose in this article is to thoroughly study the subject from the Bible so as to completely understand it and be able to act in agreement with God’s will.

The Necessity of Discipline

Where there is no penalty attached to the violation of law, there is neither respect for the Law nor for the Law-giver. Juvenile delinquency results from a lack of discipline (Prov. 13:24; Eph. 6:1-4). We all recognize the necessity of discipline in the classroom and that the civil government requires punishment upon criminals (Rom. 13:1-4).

God has never tolerated trifling with His Laws. Confusion would result if there was no punishment for violation and God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Adam and Eve were punished for violation of God’s instructions (Gen. 3:17-24; 2:17). The whole world, with the exception of eight righteous souls, perished in the flood because of wickedness (Gen. 6). Nadab and Abihu presumed to offer “strange fire” to the Lord and were consumed by fire from heaven (Lev. 10). Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Lord and fell dead at the apostle’s feet (Acts 5).

Similarly, there must be discipline in the church today. Note that I said similarly — not exactly like the above cases, but discipline nevertheless. There are two main differences between the above cases and discipline in the church today: 1) God does not deal directly with violators of His Law today and 2) God does not deal out punitive discipline either directly or indirectly (through agents) unless Hebrews 12 is an exception of this. Even though this is true, there is still discipline. If there is no discipline, then the effect would be the same as in the situations mentioned (classroom, parents, government)-there would be no respect for God or for His Law.

Definitions

More brethren would be in favor of church discipline if they understood the broad meaning of the term. Discipline is defined by Webster as: “noun; mental or moral training; education; subjection to control; military regulation; chastisement; an instrument of punishment. Verb transitive; to train to obedience or efficiency: regulate; chastise” (New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1962). In Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged, 1959, it is defined as: “Noun, (1) training that develops self-control, character, or orderliness and efficiency. (2) the result of such training; self-control; orderly conduct. (3) a system of rules or methods, as for the conduct of members of a monastic order. (4) subjection to rule; submissiveness to control. (5) correction; chastisement; punishment inflicted by way of correction and training. (6) anything taught; branch of knowledge or learning. Verb transitive, (1) to subject to discipline; to instruct or educate; to prepare by instruction; to train; as to discipline youth for a profession. (2) to chastise; to punish. (3) to execute the laws of a church on. (4) to keep in subjection; to regulate; to govern. Synonyms: train, form, educate, instruct, drill, regulate, correct, chastise, punish.” We can see from this that discipline does not involve corporal punishment only, but also involves instruction and training. In fact, the instruction and training come first!

The Old Testament equivalent of “discipline” is musar which comes from yasar meaning “to bind, to tame; hence to correct, chastise, instruct, admonish” (“First Century Preaching by Twentieth Century Preachers” by Jimmy Tuten and Floyd Chappelear, p. 81). Some passages to read are Proverbs 3:11-12; 13:24; 22:15; 23:13; Deut. 8:5; Job 5:17; Psalm 94:12.

The word “discipline” (from the Greek sophronismos) does not appear in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. It appears once in the American Standard Version (ASV) in 2 Timothy 1:7 (KJV, “sound mind”). This word means: “1. an admonishing or calling to soundness of mind, to moderation and self-control . . . 2. self-control, moderation…” (Thayer, p. 613).

However, the idea expressed in the Hebrew “yasar” is best expressed in two Greek words: 1) “paideia” and 2) “paideuo.” Thayer says regarding these words (p. 473):

“Paideia: 1. the whole training and education of children . . . Eph. 6:4 . . . 2. whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, esp. by correcting mistakes and curbing the passions; hence a. instruction which aims at the increase of virtue: 2 Tim. 3:16 . . . b. acc. to bibl. usage chastisement, chastening . . . Heb. 12:5. . . .

“Paideuo: 1 . . . . to train children: . . . to be instructed or taught, to learn: . . . 1 Tim. 1:20; to cause one to learn: . . . Titus 2:12. 2. to chastise; a. to chastise or castigate with words, to correct: . . . 2 Tim. 2:25 . . . b. in bibl. and eccl. use employed of God, to chasten by the infliction of evils and calamities . . . 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3. .:19 . . . c. to chastise with blows, to scourge . . . Heb. 12:7, (10) . . . Lk.23:26,22.”

We have seen that discipline is training, rules, submissiveness, corrections, chastisement, instruction, regulation, governing – and since we are talking about “church discipline,” it is discipline pertaining to the spiritual growth and development of the individual Christian in the local congregation and of the attitudes and actions of the members of the local congregation toward one another.

Two Kinds

There are two basic kinds of disciplinary action: (1) Instructive: This is “preventative” in nature. It is designed so the Christian can learn God’s will in order to apply it to his life and please God. Thus, the Christian avoids the second kind of disciplinary action – (2) Corrective: This is “punitive” in nature. It results from inadequate instructive discipline or the failure of the Christian to make application of that instruction to his life. These two kinds of disciplinary action will be discussed next week in the section “The Means of (How To) Discipline.”

The Scriptures Commanding Discipline

Matthew 18:15-17 (the offender is also to go to the offended, Matt. 5:23-24); Luke 17:3; Romans 16:17-20; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; James 5:19-20.

These are some of the passages dealing with “instructive discipline” and all the passages dealing with “corrective discipline.” It would be good to read these passages and keep them in mind as you complete this study. (Continued Next Week). See also the tract on Church Discipline by Cecil Willis.

Truth Magazine XXI:22, pp.349-350
June 2, 1977