Banned from church
January 18th, 2008A story in today’s Wall Street Journal addresses the issue of churches who take seriously the Bible’s instructions to practice church discipline.
While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.
Unfortunately, only a small percentage of churches are willing to obey the biblical commands to discipline wayward members. The story cites estimates from scholars that only 10-15 percent of Protestant evangelical churches practice church discipline.
And while many churches might be willing to discipline for offenses such as adultery, sadly, they’re not willing to discipline for such issues as “skipping service and criticizing church leaders.” I know a lot of churches that could have been spared so much heartache and division if the church had obediently and lovingly disciplined those who were habitual gossips and consistent critics of church leaders.
This is not a matter of interpretation, as the biblical commands to practice church discipline are abundantly clear. It’s a simple matter of obedience. And it’s too bad that so many churches are more concerned about offending some of their members than they are in promoting holiness.
Hat tip: Denny Burk
The numerous examples of church leaders acting like total idiots - such as those cited in this article - are a big reason why church discipline has fallen from favor.
I think it’s important that we have a broader view of church discipline than just kicking people out (I’m all for kicking people out, fyi). If a church is healthy, the majority of “church discipline” cases will be handled by one person lovingly confronting another about their sin. In my experience, most people either repent or leave the church at that point.
I agree, Peter, and Hershael York, as quoted on Denny Burk’s blog, addresses that problem of people who are opposed to church discipline because of church leaders acting like idiots:
“The article is tantamount to being against spanking because some parents abuse their children, or criticizing ‘time out’ because some parents lock their children in the basement.
“I have little doubt that discipline is sometimes abused, but frankly the greater and far more frequent problem in contemporary churches is that discipline isn’t even discussed–regardless of what Jesus taught. What a shame that a publication the stature of the WSJ would countenance so unbalanced a presentation of the facts.”
I’ve been at my church for almost three years now, and we haven’t had any issues where we’ve removed someone from membership. We’ve started the process, but thankfully it hasn’t gotten that far — specifically because, as you noted, the issues were addressed at the individual level. And the people involved did either repent or leave.
The same cannot be said for my former church, where a number of members should have been disciplined — and probably kicked out — for their blatant sins. That wasn’t done, however, and it resulted in a split and much turmoil and heartache.
I’ve seen the lack of this tear my old home church apart. “Much turmoil and heartache” just about sums it up.
Discipline is painted in a bad light but done correctly, it is a great and glorious method by which God uses to keep His bride pure and it is for the good of the one being disciplined: to bring them back to repentance.
j razz
The is not the situation in my church. Just asking about other possibilities.
If discipline is done wrongly (either not at all or knee-jerk public shaming without private effort or for minor differences of theology), should a person move on or try to make a difference?
Good question, Bill. I’d guess it would depend upon the situation. Let’s say that discipline was done badly, and that the person who was disciplined is no longer in the church — or the issue has been resolved. In a case like this, where there’s no unrepentant sin involved, I’d probably stay and try to make a difference for the next time something might happen.
If I were in a church that didn’t practice discipline and those in unrepentant sin were still allowed full rights and fellowship in the church, I’d probably raise the issue but would then have to move on if it weren’t dealt with quickly. I don’t see how I could worship and function effectively in a church if there’s public sin that goes unaddressed.
Being removed for insisting that the pastor abide by the church by-laws? This matter SHOULD have been handled better by the pastor. He is an authoritarian who has no business in the pulpit. Adultery, gossip, slander…….this I could see. It appears to me that Burrick, the so-called pastor, wanted to weed out anyone who would disagree with him.
Discipline in the church if done properly is needed in todays church’s. But this guy is off base I think.
I have been a member of a church that excomunicated three members while I was there. In both cases the church had just reason to do so. In the one instance there was a trial held. One of the families has even come back after being removed sought forgivness from the church and attends there today This is what dicipline in the church is intended to accomplish.
Pastor Jeff Noblit is a personal friend of mine, and a man whom I greatly respect. If the Wall Street Journal would have chosen, Brother Jeff could have share a great deal more about how they do church discipline. They are very loving and seek the restoration of the individual. It is sad that the only impression the secular world ever gets about this issue comes with such a bias. As our churches strive to be more biblical, we should look to churches who correctly do practice church discipline and pray for them. For the few who get silly and do foolish things, they should be lovingly correct themselves.