Tim Ellsworth

16 Responses to “The role of church discipline”

1. Laz says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 11:07 am
   

   How can it not when clearly Jesus teaches it in Matthew 18?

   The problem is that we tend to be selective in what is disciplined.

   To the detriment of the health of congregations throughout the country, divorce is given more of a pass than say, homosexuality.

2. Nick Fox says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
   

   Good point Laz. there is certainly a disconnect there.

   I was ready to come on here and really talk up church discipline, but after reading the article, I’m not sure this qualifies as a church. It appears that they don’t let scripture dictate what they do in other areas, so why should we expect them to do it here? As one member said, it is a cult.

3. j razz says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
   

   When you have an organized group calling itself a church what safeguards can the protestant church offer to protect the name of Christ and to ensure that others will not blaspheme God?

   Looking to what God told David through Nathan concerning his sin with Bathsheba- his sin would be an avenue by which the nations would have opportunity to blaspheme the Lord. 2 Samuel 12:13-14. I don’t see this any different. It gives the world another reason to discredit Christianity and move on to other things. I struggle with this as there are no safeguards for such a thing as this built into protestantism. The freedom that protestant denominations have to live out the scripture are the very same freedoms that make things like this possible.

   In the Catholic church if a church chooses to ignore papal decrees, they can cut off that church from catholicism and be on their merry way. This makes a statement to the world that this church is not a part of us. Protestants have attempted to do this with denominations but even with that, it is a far cry from what it should be. I assume one has to choose the lesser of the two evils and go with it.

   I just wish there was some way to make it clear to all that this type of “church” is not really a church at all.

   j razz

4. Bubba says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
   

   I’m not sure such a safeguard is possible, j razz: at least not one that doesn’t present an opportunity for other sins that would discredit the universal church.

   Think of it this way: every safeguard in our criminal justice system that is designed to prevent the truly innocent from being convicted also enables the guilty to avoid conviction. Since the truth of a person’s innocence or guilt can only be known imperfectly, there’s no way to both types of errors simultaneously.

   Likewise, the same system that allows the Catholic Church to excommunicate heretics also made it difficult to correct the corruption of indulgences from within.

   As with all things apart from the cross of Christ itself, there are no solutions: only tradeoffs.

5. j razz says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
   

   The freedom that protestant denominations have to live out the scripture are the very same freedoms that make things like this possible.

   It truly is a two-edged sword. We don’t want to go back to the days of the inquisition but we also don’t want God’s name to be blasphemed due to the actions of those calling themselves churches. It is a hard subject to tackle in my mind.

   It all comes back to the lesser of two evils yeah?

   j razz

6. Nick Fox says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
   

   You make a great point, Bubba. All freedom absolutely creates the opportunity for those freedoms to be abused. But, it goes back to the idea that some freedoms are so basic, so important, that the abuse of them is certainly a lesser evil than taking that freedom away.

   Example: freedom of speech certainly allows for people to say some very stupid, wrong, hurtful, and even destructive things. However, that is certainly a lesser evil than a land where people are not allowed to express themselves however they want.

   Raleted to this situation, I think this church has the freedom to call themselves Christian, Buddhist, or whatever they want. That is certainly better than having church police cracking down on groups of believers who who are trying to follow the Bible and trying to be progressive. Some of the best things to happen in the church were progressive ideas that were trying to be squashed (as referenced above).

   I guess in the end we have to take solice in this: non-Christians aren’t stupid. We think they non-believers see this and lump all Christians together. I would argue that is an extreme and doesn’t happen as much as we think. The average non-believer out there sees this story and thinks, “what wackos”, but they seldom associate that with the church down the street that that has a good reputation for winning the lost, serving the poor, and helping people break the bonds of addiction on their lives.

   A story like this makes me sad for the believers in the body that were hurt by this mess, but it doesn’t make me worry about the state of Christ’s church as a whole.

7. Joel Maners says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
   

   First of all, I think we are getting the cart before the horse here. Sure there is a place for Church discipline, but will always be a problem if we continue to have an impoverished theology of the church. As long as we preach that people can come to know Christ outside the context of the church, the church will continue to be an afterthought and church discipline will continue to be the joke that it is today.

   Second, church discipline is not for the reputation of th church so much as it is to turn the sinner to repentance. Read the case of the incestuous relationship Paul addressed in Corinth.

8. j razz says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
   

   Joel,

   I don’t think that scripture says it is anything less than for the reputation of Christ Himself as well as for the unrepentant sole that claims Him as savior.

   j razz

9. Joel Maners says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
   

   I Corinthians 5:4-5

   “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.”

10. j razz says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 12:33 am
    

    Joel,

    I am not saying anything less than what you are saying, I just think more is involved than just the man focused aspect of church discipline. Take Hebrews 6.6 for example. The person spoken of in the preceding verses is subjecting Christ to public shame and crucifying Him all over again.

    I don’t think scripture will allow us to just limit discipline’s telos to restoration. I believe there is something there that looks badly upon Christ when one of His own lives in disobedience. Not only that, that lifestyle can have a devastating effect on other Churches as well; just look at the Catholic Church with the sexual sin that pervaded several American churches.

    Joel, again, I affirm what you are saying, I just don’t think that is all scripture is saying.

    j razz

11. Joel Maners says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 12:53 am
    

    I understand j. I just think that sometimes we obsess over protecting Jesus’ reputation as opposed to just loving people and restoring them the way he did. He seems to be far ore concerned with our well being than his own reputation. Just look at his life. Speaking with a Samaritan woman, embracing a leper, touching a dead body, dying on a cross of all things. The list goes on and on. These are not the things one does when one is interested in protecting his reputation. Our business is the work of reconciliation. That was the ministry of Jesus and it remains our work today. When that work means that our name gets sullied, then so be it.

    Scot McKnight has a great chapter on this subject in his book The Jesus Creed.

12. j razz says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 1:05 am
    

    Good point Joel. It is not wise to fall off either side of that fence. We need to be balanced in what we do without giving the world opportunity to look at our deeds and blame our Father in Heaven.

    Even us living a life of holiness needs to be done in love and looking towards glorifying our Father in Heaven by our good deeds that He Himself prepared in advance for us to walk in.

    So, whether He was ministering to the Samaritan lady or driving money changers out of the temple, Christ was concerned with loving people and upholding His reputation. Not the kind of reputation that would be esteemed by the world, but the kind of reputation that would be esteemed God and those that seek after Him.

    j razz

13. Travis says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 11:51 am
    

    “Not the kind of reputation that would be esteemed by the world, but the kind of reputation that would be esteemed God”

    Exactly right, J Razz!

14. Verne says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
    

    My answer to your question J razz is YES. I feel that todays churches lack the practice of dicipline. The domonation that I am a part of has recieved lots of critisim for the practice of dicipline. We have been told that we are to strict and that dicipline should be left outside the church. I do not agree with that at all. We need dicipline in todays church more that ever.

    Amen to Joels comment the act of dicipline is with the hope that the sinner will repent and then the church will rejoice in that such act.

    I also agree that it may be unclear if the church in this situation is really a true church.

15. Verne says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
    

    Please don’t grade my spelling

16. j razz says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
    

    You know though, just to throw this in there and to add to the balancing act… scripture does mandate that elders/pastors/bishops be looked favorably upon by those outside of the church. I don’t think this goes without reason.

    I Timothy 3.7

    j razz