Should Congregations Vote to Discipline?

Ted, I have quite a few thoughts on this one but there are some aspects of your view that are not quite clear to me yet so...

1. The relationship between the "one or two" in Matt.18:16 and the "two or three witnesses" in the OT and later in v.16... Is it your view that the "one or two" are

1. the equivalent of the "two or three witnesses" who would--in other settings--testify regarding the guilt of the accused, or
2. two brothers who come with you to confront the sinning brother and add weight and seriousness to your confrontation, or
3. some combination of the two?

2. The role of the ekklesia... In your view, is the role of the ekklesia in the passage parallel to the role of the "one or two" and the individual believer who confronts the sinner or is it significantly different?

3. In your understanding of the passage, who is deciding weather the "one or two" and the original accuser are correct? Since we know bearing false witness is a real possibility in these situations (Ex.20.16), who has the job of judging whether the testimony of witnesses (whether or not they are the same as the "one or two") is true?

So I'll save my counterarguments for when I'm clearer on how you see these particulars.

Okay, we live in an age of dot the "i" and cross the "t." In discipline cases within an incorporated church, guidelines are required and are expected to be the final solution to these issues (for they are Biblical.) For example, a letter of incorporation is the legal charter -- then a constitution is added to clarify objectives, statement of faith, and so on. Next, a covenant (template or customized) is a document that gives solidarity to the church's ultimate purpose and the members particularity. Then by-laws are adopted that specifies every contingency possible (including discipline). It must be clearly spelled out. Included would also be pastoral and other officers and workers duties, committees, meetings and rules, etc.

Now, why am I spending all this time on these (for the most part) unread materials? I Cor 14:40 - do everything decently and in order (I know the context but this is part of an orderly church). The Corinthians were calling upon Paul to settle matters that Timothy and Titus would later get more detailed instruction. If a church is congregational in its polity, they vote. My recent pastorate required 67% of present active members (also defined) to vote on a discipline matter. BUT ALL OF THIS IS WELL AFTER SUFFICIENT TIME HAS PASSED FOR THE LEADERSHIP TO EXERCISE GAL 6. In our culture, certified letters must be sent to the offender to give him/her every possible advantage to see the harm done to themselves, others, and the church in general.

Part of the by-laws must state reasons for termination (which would include an exclusion by action [interpret vote] of the church. If the non-repentant is not voted out after a clear and fair presentation has been given, then the church is failing to fulfill its responsibilities. Use First Corinthians 5 - the incest horror. Read the last verse. Purge, do not give him comfort for we, the church of our Lord, are the caretakers of those WITHIN the Body. By not dismissing the one charged, we bring shame upon ourselves and the pastor is no longer in a place of leadership for the church does not fear God.

Now, this is assuming a lot; however, if all things are equal as stated in the original post, that church might look at Laodicea or Ephesus in Rev 2-3 for HE KNOWS. Peace to all.

So this is my first post at SI, so please be gentle I'll also add the disclaimer that I am a deacon at Grace Church in Hartford, where Ted is an elder and the pastor. So hopefully you can take what I have to say at face value and not assume that I am defending one of my elders

Aaron, I may be able to help you with 2 of your questions, as I happened to be in attendence during one of the men's studies in which Ted led a discussion on this very topic. I'm not sure when Ted will be able to post a response to your questions, but hopefully this will provide you with some clarity as you formulate and state your counterarguments. I'll let Ted handle your first question, but I'll offer something to chew on for questions 2 and 3.

Hope this helps as you formulate your ideas

J

Ted and JDtlev,

It appears to me that you have misunderstood Deuteronomy 19:15. Unless Jesus fully isolated Deut. 19:15 from its context, His use of it does not mean what you contend. Two or three witnesses were required in Mosaic jurisprudence in order for an accusation to be legitimate, NOT A JUDGMENT. Note the following verses: "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. "If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you."

Following the Law of Moses, rabbinic teaching explained that both parties are to stand before the court and present their cases (in civil suit a court of three, in criminal suits, a court of 23). The two or three witnesses were to present the accusation of a wrong-doer. They were not the judges. See Abraham Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, 207-210.

Your viewpoint has completely neglected what the Bible takes pains to describe, and gives instances of, namely, false accusations leveled against another in the community (e.g. Christ Himself).

So the point of Jesus in Matthew 18 is to have the original offended take one or two with him, to make the point a serious one (usually church discipline ends here. Being confronted by more than one person in the church has a strong impact). If the person then refuses to repent, the offense is taken to the whole ekklesia. They are, indeed the final arbiter. They do not simply submit to the statements of two or three church members.

Hi Gregg,

Congregational voting stretches way back in church history (way back), as I have already pointed out in my articles on the subject. The idea that there should be no voting, or that voting is sinful came first through the growth of hierarchy. In the US, it is a new concept among evangelicals.

I wonder how much church discipline (with voting) people writing on this website have actually experienced?

In the last church I led, we had a lady who left her husband for another lover. She was confronted, and later disciplined out of the church (and invited to be present at the session). Her husband rejected her, but Christians loved and forgave her. For a time she went away from Christ completely, but later was restored. She now lives for the Lord. Witnesses brought the issue to the entire membership, where the matter was discussed for about 20 minutes, with appropriate questions asked, then the matter was voted upon. One young man abstained, then explained after the vote that he felt that as a sinner, he could not judge another. An older woman who had herself been disciplined the same way earlier in her life, spoke to him. She explained that discipline by the whole church gives an erring brother or sister the chance to think about what they are doing, and the hope that they can turn around and be different. It was a very, very special event, with the resultant growth of an immature Christian and the long term result of a sister restored to fellowship.

I am pleased to give this disasterous report.

Hey Dan,
I didn't intend to offend, just responding to how it reads from the outside, not knowing your line of thinking beyond what you wrote in the post.

I think you missed my point on this. While I agree you were examining the event, you wrote as if you were questioning Ted's integrity in posting this event. Your examination of it was in the details rather than the broader picture. If you were intent on profitably examining the event, rather than getting bogged down in meaningless details, you'd care little for Ted's knowledge of the event - whether the facts were 100% correct of not, as reported by a colleague of his - and instead ask yourself how it is that this reported event could have been avoided or how a biblical application of Matthew 18 was or was not followed by that church. Once again, I write this not knowing your thinking behind what you type, but practically speaking, this is how your post appeared to an outside reader.

So, moving on, based on the reported facts of the incident, what were the right and wrong things that happened in that church and how could these events have been prevented?

I am kind of wondering what you are saying. A church decides after they have heard the witnesses. This is not very hard to understand. If the sinner is present, and wants to make a case for himself, that is where he may do so. That, however, is a very rare event.

Fair question, but I wonder why He would need to reduce his authority to two or three. He said, Matthew 18:17-18 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Jesus was talking to all the disciples at that moment, not just two or three. He had just finished mentioning the church. The statement about 2 or 3 follows Jesus' statement about the loosing and binding power of the whole church. It is quite a bit of authority.

God as the final arbiter? He gave that authority to the judges (Deut 19:16-20). You are assuming that the witnesses mentioned in Matt. 18 are basically infallible, it appears to me. If I cannot question what they say, but only submit, they are basically infallible.

First, it appears to me, that you take the witnesses to be elders. Do you have a basis for that?

Second, confront the person living in sin? That person has already been confronted before the matter is taken to the church. If they are at the meeting, they are confronted by the church through their questions and participation in the decision. But if, as you say, the only action of the congregation is to believe the witnesses/elders regardless, then go and confront the erring brother who has already been confronted multiple times, can this possibly work? Will the erring brother stand and listen for an hour while all the members of the church file by and admonish him? If he is not present, will he kindly open the door of his house as day after day each member calls on him to ask him to repent? I wonder really what you are talking about. Please tell me how this has worked in your church, how your church has listened to two or three witnesses, then every member of the church has gone to the sinner and talked to him.

Hey Jeff, sorry for the confusion. What I was asking is if the whole congregation would need to thoroughly investigation on top of th witness testimony as the judges do in Deut. 19. You answered the question for me...thanks!

It is definitely quite a bit of authority, but it makes sense given the subject matter.

I was making the binding and loosing argument. The unrepentence identified by the witnesses is confirmed by the Lord in heaven. The greek does a far better job of describing this event than the english, from what I remember. And no, this doesn't have to be the elders, as Jesus never mentioned them in this passage. But, like the witnesses in Israel, they'd need to be reputable, to say the least. I make mention on this in another post - to Aaron I believe.

I think that you are misunderstanding the concept of addressing the unrepentent sin by the church. It isn't in a church meeting format. It would be every time a member of the church interacts with the person. In church settings - outside of church...anywhere. For example, let's say the person calls, seeking to borrow a cup of milk. You would respond first by asking him/her if they have repented. The next day you see run into them at the store, and repeat the question. Wouldn't you agree that this type of a repeat occurrence would have a much more profound effect on the person rather than a church vote? Eventually the person would either give up or repent. A vote doesn't need to occur for this to happen. If the person still doesn't repent following everyone in the church, they'd then be approached evangelistically.

J

(Sorry this is a little long)
I have been involved in a number of church discipline cases. A few principles I have tried to use:
1. I think the sin needs to be sufficiently clear, open, and serious enough that the whole church needs to hear about it.
2. The facts should be sufficiently established that they can be brought clearly and concisely to the congregation. If the relevant sin(s) can't be summed up in 10 minutes with the major evidence presented by the 2-3 witnesses then do you really have a clear cut case? For instance - either they openly slandered the leadership and you can prove it or they didn't, they committed adultery and you have the facts or they didn't, they stole money from the church and you can prove it or they didn't. It should not be a two hour presentation to convince the congregation of some obscure fault.
3. Ultimately all church discipline ends up being rebellion to God, the church, and the relevant passages that point out their clear sin (you DO have relevant passages that point out their clear sin right?) By the end of step two the person should have a clear understanding that their major sin now is open rebellion to the clear Word of God. The ultimate sin brought to the congregation is willful rebellion to God's Word no matter what the original sin was.
4. In the public meeting we present the sin, the relevant passages, and we then give the person a public opportunity to repent before the whole church. (Repentance may happen like this, but I have yet to see it.)
5. We then open the floor to ask if there is anyone who would like to give a biblical presentation in defense of the person's actions? We have yet to have anyone take us up on this (and if we have done our homework no ever should. Let's face it, if you're worried to do this step then just how strong a biblical case do you have?) At this point we can look at the person and implore them one final time to repent because there is no one in the entire church willing to defend them.
6. Then we ask the congregation to vote on whether or not the person has shown repentance, NOT their guilt or innocence.

I had a situation where we met with a gentleman who had handed out material in the church foyer slanderous of the church leadership. We met with him privately several times and it was like talking to a brick wall. When it came time for the public meeting he called me and said, "What are you going to say, and how should I be prepared?" I said, "I'm going to tell people you acted in open rebellion to the established leadership of the church and you should be prepared to say that was wrong and ask everyone's forgiveness for spreading dissent and sedition." He showed up at the meeting, the facts were established (we had the papers he handed out) and then we just threw him rope. He tied nooses in it and stuck his neck in, over and over. People begged him to repent, he himmed and hawed and gave conditional apologies, "If what I said offended anyone I'm sorry." He cooked his own goose. By the time he was done the entire congregation realized who he was and with what spirit he operated.

But we never asked the congregation to vote on the guilt or innocence of his original actions. We presented why we believed they were unbiblical and asked the congregation basically, "Do you see something we are missing?", "Would anyone like to help us see how his actions were somehow Biblical in nature?", "Does anyone have a Biblical justification for his actions? Anyone?" If no one defends him then obviously his guilt is established.
So it was evaluated by the two or three witnesses and every word was established, and now the whole church has heard it, and no one is willing to defend him, so now the question is, will he listen to the whole church?
It is then up to the church to decide if he is listening or not. That is what the congregation votes on.
And that vote won't take place in the factual meeting. He will be given a few weeks after that meeting to repent and be restored. He will know there is no one willing to defend him. But we believe the condition of Matthew 18:17 "If he refuses to listen even to the church." Does require the church to give him the message. This (in my mind) calls for a vote. How can he "listen to the church" if the church isn't given an opportunity to say something? But they are voting on his repentance, not his guilt or innocence.

I am not persuaded, Ted, on throwing out congregational rule.

But I have been reading your series of articles on this topic.

Ted: in the context of the discussion I was referring to the congregation not voting on his original sin. Clearly his unrepentant spirit is a further sin, in fact the major sin for which he will experience the discipline. It was not my intention to imply his lack of repentance was less this sin. Sorry if it came across that way. (And for the record, it is always possible the congregation will refuse to vote against a popular person even if they are in open rebellion to the leadership. If that is the case, at least you will know the biblical heart of the sheep your are shepherding.)

OK, I will try again. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 19:15 "that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

Principle: just as according to the Law of Moses, you don't listen to the accusation of one person. You have to have one or two more affirming.

Your perspective is, that the whole church is to submit to what the two or three witnesses say. However, in the Deut. passage, most of the subject is taken up with false witnesses. Your article does not even envision that there could be a false witness in a church (or two or three). In the Deuteronomy passage, which Jesus quoted, the judges are to assess whether what the two or three witnesses are saying is true. So the nation let the judges decide, not the witnesses. You, however, require that a church always submit themselves to the two or three witnesses. I believe the Bible does not say this at all.

.

I knew this was coming. In reality, you expect the church to submit without any question to the elders. So where are the elders in Matthew 18? Where are they in any NT passage about discipline? I am willing to be instructed. The only one I know is 1 Timothy 5:19, where Elders are not to be "accused" except by two or three witnesses (Yes - Witnesses do accuse). I think, Ted you read a lot into Matthew 18, and read the normal sense of the text out. Please, if you answer, just give me a text where Elders are denoted as the primary people involved in Church discipline.

Hey Dr. Jeff,
First off, Love Mark Dever and his work at Capitol Hill and 9marks. Now moving on...

To say that the real problem had nothing to do with a vote is simplifying things a bit too much. There are many problems with the situation, beginning with unrepentence and ending with a tragic church vote - tragic in the sense that by not voting to discipline, the body disobeyed Christ, let alone the elders of that church. The ultimate result of this disobedience is an assumedly painful situation that would have been avoided had people submitted to their eldership rather than voting on whether their elders were correct in suggesting discipline, therefore directly disobeying Hebrews 13:17. So in that sense you are absolutely right, in that the real problem wasn't the vote, it was disobedience on multiple levels, which was exemplified through the vote.

I doubt that Ted or Gregg or myself would argue the fact of horror stories from elder rule churches because elders are sinful men. However, I would argue that those horror stories are related to elders who have disqualified themselves and not true biblical elders...but that is probably best saved for another post arguing for congregational church discipline.

Also, while, yes I am attempting to parse your ideas I'm doing it to gain an understanding of the workings of congregational discipline and how one would prevent this from happening in that setting. I don't really see how avoiding discipline with an unrepentent sinner, as you (through Mark Devers words) suggest, would be beneficial to the body. While I agree that showing up to pastor a church and then being involved in discipline is a messy situation, is there a better approach to take, or would you just live with the sin and hope that the person changes through your preaching?

And one last thing that you are avoiding (perhaps it's because of my messy earlier posts and for that I apologize)...how does Matthew 18:19,20 fit into the idea that the ekklesia is the final arbiter?

Thanks for throwing this out there regarding my q for Shaynus

J

I intended to keep up with this discussion but haven't been able to. I have some notes from a day or two ago that may be of some value or may be completely redundant at this point.
But here they are, for what it's worth.

Once again the SBC church example is one where voting exposed a problem that was already there (if we assume they actually voted to ignore the sin). If the people do not understand and embrace biblical teaching regarding discipline, things are a mess regardless of whether there is a vote. If they do understand and accept the Scripture's authority on the matter, their vote will reflect that. So again the argument here fails to show that voting is in any way the actual problem.

How do you know? Is it really impossible that a congregation that has known the man for many years has a better understanding of what really happened than a pastor who just arrived?

You're misunderstanding the significance of "two or three witnesses" in Scripture, I think. The teaching is not that the authority resides in the witnesses. Rather, always, there is a body that is hearing the witnesses. Witnesses testify to someone. Nor does Scripture teach that if the witnesses agree, that necessarily settles it in every case. The purpose of their testifying before a decision-maker (whether a group of Levites or a single judge) is for that judging entity to evaluate the testimony. Since "bearing false witness" is clearly possible (hence, the commandment), the judge(s) must determine what is true.

Edit to add: the "that every word may be established" is not the same as saying "that the truth or falsehood of the claim may finally decided by the two or three." He just doesn't say that much. It's possible to take it that way but far from necessary to take it that way.

So now we have infallible witnesses? What if they do not agree among themselves? Where does Scripture teach witness infallibility?

So now the church is supposed to decide something, but it is supposed to decide without voting? How is their decision supposed to be measured? You can't have it both ways. Either the church has authority here (and needs to measure its decision) or it does not.

I think "before the ekklesia" almost has to mean "as a group." Pretty sure study of the term ekklesia would bear that out. In the context, the sinner is confronted by one, then by a few, then by the church. The few do not confront him individually one at a time. Nor does the ekklesia.

Who is ensuring that they make this effort? It must be the congregation. There is no one else.

There's a false choice here. For a congregation to restore a wandering sheep, it must make a decision, together, regarding whether the sheep has wandered and how to respond. "We'll vote on it" is not the congregation saying "We'll vote on whether to obey," but rather a congregation saying "We'll vote in order to obey."

Hi Bob, Let me start out by saying that you have far more experience in this than I do, on top of the fact that you have a seminary education, but bear with me for a moment. Based on Matthew 18:17, the church is the final step in this process, with that I agree. However, just as you argue that there are no elders in view - which there aren't, there isn't a question about that - there is no vote in view either. So either way, both parties are taking other scripture and applying it to this section in a systematic manner. Basically, it comes down to how you view church governance, so to say that a vote is required of the assembly is reading the vote into Matthew 18, just as elders are read into Matthew 18 by the opposing view. So how can this be settled, if neither elders nor voting are explicitly stated? I think you unintentionally got us closer to the answer. As you stated, "The passages on Elders do give them servanthood authority in the assembly." Yet, "But here the assembly stands alone as the final authority." This seems inconsistent. If elders have servanthood authority in the assembly, yet have no servanthood authority in matters of church discipline which involves the assembly, how are they to "watch over your souls [and] give an account" as it states in Hebrews 13:17 on matters of discipline? So yes, the church is the final step in the process, but it seems that it is inconsistent with other passages of Scripture to claim that they are the authority on the matter of church discipline.

My question regarding your view on this is the same as it is for Dr. Brown. If the assembly is the final authority on this matter, why does Christ discuss the two or three in v. 19-20, pointing back to the original witnesses in v.15?

J

To: JDitlev et. al.

First, whether the assembly formerly voted, had a voice consus vote, or as with middle east present custom, everyone in favor took off a shoe and threw it at the guilty party, is not the issue. If the assembly is the final and highest earthly authority then they have a right to determine the manner of their procedure. There are several passages, such as Acts 7 and 1Cor. 8:23 that indicate assembly involvement in choosing. Just because they do not dilineate the passing out and casting of ballots does not give us authority to say the assembly never voted. Thats an argument from silence.

Second, The discussing of the 2 or 3 cannot abrogate the clear main subject. Your interpretation must fit that into the the clear subject of the passage. However, my observation is that it is based on believers assembling and emphasis that the real presence of the Lord is always there, even when it is two or three assembled. This gives the authority regarding agreement. Where those assembled (main subject) agree, even two, then there is the authority of heaven. Now we must again bring in the concept of theological interpretation. The assumptions of this passage are that the issue regarding the persons sin must be of kind that requires intervention. If any sin is worthy of such procedure then all of us would be confronting one another all the time. It must be a significant sin of moral or disruptive, or doctrinal nature. There is also the assumption that the witnesses and the assembly do adequately seek the will of God. There is also the assumption that any and all actions will be in accordance with revealed scripture and spiritual truth. Why all the assumptions? Because Matthew is guided to only record that part of the Lord's discourse that emphasizes the procedure for handling sin. Many specifics must be gleaned form all other parts of scripture.

The story conveyed by Ted at the beginning of his article may well involve an assembly out of God's will. That does not give us authority to set aside a God given procedure. However, as I read the story some red flags went up. First the sin was regarding a person and instances that may have involved arrogance and have at the heart differences with a new pastor. Some studies have shown that in North America today it takes a new Pastor at least 5 years to gain the confidence of a congregation. In rural churches he may gain some trust but always be considered the outsider. Perhaps the new pastor should have concentrated on passive resistance and let the congregation gradually see the sin of this individual. Right after Central Seminary I pastored an independent church that had elders but also congregational government. It was a long established church and there were some wary of me. I was their first pastor with Seminary and my law degree made them really suspicious. Wern't all lawyers devious? When the annual congregational meeting came around one man who worked with the youth and music asked the Elders if he could make a statement. They said yes, why not. At the meeting this man stood and shouted twice, with tears and great drama, "Our Pastor is in SIN.!! Most sat there in shock or dismayed. I and my family sat there bewildered. After a long pause the man then explained my sin. He said; "the youth were leaving on a camping trip last week. The Pastor was in his study and briefly looked out the window and just waved to us. He did not come out and say good bye. He does not love our youth. He is in sin." After all the stunned silence, some angry elders wanted to reply, I motioned to them no. I did not explain that I had in fact been counseling two people and could not go out. After the meeting everyone came up to me to apologize and wish me and my family well. I went up to the man and merely said "I really do want to love you and the youth." The Elders wanted him disciplined. I went out to their house and had discussion. He did not repent and was very antagonistic. Since he was about 20 years older than I and they had been in the church for about 30 years, I advised not to take any discipline further. The man's married son and his family became good friends. The man had lost all credibility in the church and was no threat. We also had a God given unity from that point on.

Sometimes church discipline could be in order but grace will accomplish more. I brought some perspective from secular management to the Pastoral experience that is also Biblical. I have a duty to shepherd the whole flock and to see the effect on the whole flock. That man was not the complete picture spiritually.

I have many stories about congregational government. Some are terrible, some are funny, none gives me the authority to advocate setting aside the God given authority of the saints as expressed in assembly. Satan is alive and well and has a multi level marketing business of attacking the assembly of the saints.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for taking the time to lay out your position and why you think the way you do. It has been incredibly helpful in understanding your interpretation and application of this passage. Looking forward to learning from you in the future

J

1. I don't think that the distinction between "accusers" and "witnesses" is valid.
No one should bear witness to something he hasn't observed. I think both sides here agree on that.
And anyone who believes in the subject's innocence will not be one of the "witnesses" of Matthew 18.
These witnesses accuse.
2. I think you need to look more carefully at Matthew 18 with regard to this matter that "the charges may be established."

Right - he might claim either, "I didn't do it," or "It isn't sinful."

On the matter of Matthew 18 and what the witnesses do with regard to "establishing" the charges...
Jeff says you're making the witnesses into judges. (But in Deuteronomy, the witnesses appear before judges.) You do appear to do so:

It seems really obvious, but before I go on with this, I want to confirm it. Because in the discussion, you seem to make the elders the NT equivalent of the OT judges.

So who are the modern church equivalent of the "2 or 3" and the "judges" of Deuteronomy 19?

Excellent point Dave. Thanks for the post.

ok, I'm still not clear on how you relate Matt 18 to Deut 19.

Try this way:

1. The judge in Deuteronomy has this modern equivalent: ________________.

2. The "2 or 3" in Deuteronomy has this modern equivalent: ________________.

Quote:

If the pastor was more politically-minded than shepherding-minded he might have encouraged others to simply ignore the rude behaviors and arrogance of the man than privately confront him. But the pastor knew that Jesus’ teaching requires private confrontation, and when a matter of sin is certain and an individual remains impenitent then the matter is to be brought to the church (Matthew 18:15-16).

Ted, did I say this?

Thanks for clarifying Jeff, I appreciate it!

Ted, perhaps you could point out to me exactly where I said that the witnesses' first activity is to accuse, or only responsibility is to accuse and not examine.

But to say that "witnesses" in the biblical sense on such an occasion accuse, of this I am rightly accused.

Ok, but I'll have to post twice. First, I'll address what you said in the opening Article:

In Deuteronomy, although the matter is established by the testimony of the 2 or 3, the matter is NOT judged by the 2 or 3. It is judged by the judges. You're making the testimony into the judgment.

It would then seem you hold that there is no real judgment - at least no judgment beyond what the 2 or 3 say. In other words, the accuser (2 or 3) testifies to the church about the sin. Perhaps the subject (accused) speaks on his own behalf. And then no other determination [judgment-declaration] of guilt is made. Indeed, since you hold that the accusation of the 2 or 3 is the judgment, it would seem that there would be little else to say.

Maybe this is what you teach? or...

Hey Jeff,
Thanks for addressing my question. I now understand your interpretation of v.19-20 in context with v. 15-18. So in my reading of the passage, v. 19-20 parallels very well with v.16 and the witnesses, rather than v.17 with the assembly.

Right, so I see v. 19-20 as affirming the two or three witnesses' testimony in v. 16 - which has been affirmed by the elders prior to bringing the unrepentence to the church. The evidence of unrepentence is investigated by the witnesses and then brought to the elders because of the elders' role of servanthood authority in the church. The elders then would do a thorough investigation of the facts, to guard against false testimony, paralleled with the role of judges in Deut. 19, and then present the unrepentence to the church, if the charges are substantiated. In this way, the elders can be held accountable for this church-wide action (Hebrews 13:17), yet are only affirming the evidence of unrepentence brought about by the witnesses, which makes sense in context of v. 19-20. In this manner, the burden of the investigation lies with the witnesses and then is confirmed by the eldership, without requiring a church wide investigation of the facts. The church is simply required to submits to the elders' account and confront the unrepentence in the hopes of bringing about repentence, out of obedience to Christ. If repentence does not occur, then the person is to be a tax-collector/Gentile.

Thanks for bearing with me Jeff!

J

That is where you appear to be confused. The act of witnessing and the act of judging are different. You think they are the same and you call them "establishing."

The matter is "established" by the judges with the evidence of the witnesses.

Ridiculous attack. Why do you insist on being insulting? Are we not here discussing what Matthew 18 means?

Again, ridiculous attack. Why can't you discuss the Word without attacking people?

Ted, I understand your position. My question was where I have said that the role of witnesses is first of all, or most of all to accuse. I am not sure that I ever said or implied either.

If a church is going to refuse to vote for discipline, they are also going to refuse to confront as Ted (appropriately) says they must do, according to Matthew 18.

Ted is right that Matthew 18 clearly teaches that the church must confront. The exact nature of that confrontation, where the sinning brother hears (or refuses to hear) the church, is simply not delineated in the text. We can go back and forth whether the message is to be sent by a vote, by a letter from elders, by personal confrontation by elders and/or church members, etc, etc, etc. All the text says is that the church is to be told, and that the person is to be given a chance to hear the church. That's it. It doesn't tell us how the church is to communicate.

But I guarantee that a church that won't vote for discipline also won't communicate that repentance is absolutely required -- so you have a broken church.

One other matter. Ted draws the parallel to stoning. I would note that in the Old Testament the entire congregation took part in the punishment (death by stoning). Congregationalists believe that the entire congregation takes part in the punishment (excommunication). In both cases, the congregation accepts and actively participates in carrying out the God-ordained judgment. Do you have to have a Roberts Rules of Order vote for this to happen? No. But if the congregation does not actively accept and participate in enforcing it, you do not have church discipline.

Matthew 18 teaches nothing about congregationalism vs. elder rule. The passage can and is abused under both models, and is carried out faithfully under both models. If you believe the Scriptures teach congregationalism elsewhere, you will probably feel Matthew 18 fits better with congregationalism. If you believe they teach elder rule elsewhere, you will probably feel it fits better with elder rule.

I'm convinced elder rule vs. congregationalism is somewhat a false dichotomy which has been exacerbated, on the one hand, by the political voting methods churches have adopted, and on the other hand by domineering elders. So I'm convinced Matthew 18 fits better with a somewhat hybrid approach to church governance. But then, I have this bad habit of tending to think I'm right.

Obviously, the first two steps are personal meetings. The second one requires that the two or three go together, right? So if those two steps are normative for the methodology of the third, then the entire church must go together, logically. Of course, this might be a problem in a church of 500 people....

The church cannot know that unless they have taken sufficient action to ascertain that the accused has refused to hear. There are multiple ways to address this -- personal followup being generally preferable. I'm not advocating a letter as the best way, in general.

Two responses. The first I gave above "take with you" (v. 16), if we're making that normative, implies that the whole church should go together, which is often not practical. But there's a second reason. Christ gave specific methodology for steps 1 & 2. He gave no explicit specific methodology for step 3. Why not? You say it is implicit. I say it is because He had specific reasons for the specific methodologies he gave, but once that has been fulfilled, no specific methodology for "hearing from the church" is required for step 3.

He doesn't even explicitly tell the church to communicate with the accused. It's obviously implied, but He just doesn't address it directly at all. And I think we need to be very careful with our "Thus saith the Lord" when the Lord chose to remain silent.

Look at Acts 15. A letter was sent from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23 makes clear it was from the entire church), and designated representatives took it to Antioch. This was a serious matter, refuting false doctrine that had been claimed by its teachers to have come from the church at Jerusalem. The entire church signs off on a letter saying, "Not so."

Who wrote the letter? James and/or other elders, obviously, as representatives of the church, but it was a letter from the whole church. Of course designated/authorized representatives can speak for a church. The individualism that pervades Western thought has no place in the church. To say that every individual of the church must do this, rather than that the church can send the message through elders or other designated individuals, misses the whole point of the unity of the church. We should speak with one voice on such things, and that message hardly needs to be carried by every person individually for it to have full impact.

I understand that the relationship between I Corinthians 5, Matthew 18, and II Thessalonians 3 is a point of difference among believers. I'll just say that I understand these all to refer to church discipline matters, that I Corinthians 5 matters do not, by my understanding, always require exactly the same procedure as does a personal wrong (Mt. 18), but that in either case you end up in the same place. The person is put out of the church, and fellowship with them ends, as far as anything remotely approaching Christian fellowship.

That kind of drifts off topic, I think, so I'll defer any further comment on it.

False dichotomy. Can I choose both? Actually, I won't choose a vote, so you'll be happy about that. But I will choose formal assent that this is what the church is doing in obedience to Scripture, and a covenant together to treat the person as Christ commanded. You would do well to call on your people to covenant together in this way as well. It will strengthen them. And if anyone won't do it, then you've got another issue in your congregation you need to address.

Ted,

Sorry to take a while to get back and answer this one.

I will accept your translation of exouthenemenoi as legitimate in this instance, as well as kathizete being in the indicative, rather than the imperative.

Most English translations agree with you. German translations are evenly divided on 1 Cor 6:4, which is perhaps why I would tend to follow the NIV. Likewise, Bauer's Gk-Dt. Lexicon (on which BDAG is based) translates exouthenemenoi as "lowly esteemed" in 1 Cor. 6:4.

Where are you going with your translation?

I don't think it's wise to take such a dim view of "the world's law courts." They are appointed by God as His instruments, imperfect though they are. Romans 13:1-4. We are to honor the king (1Pet.2:17)
The point of 1 Cor. 6 is that the Corinthians should have been ashamed to take matters before unbelievers that they themselves were far more qualified the judge.

This is not difficult. The apostles are the foundation of the church and were able to speak with the authority of Christ Himself. (Eph.2:20, 1Thess. 2:6, etc.). If we had them around today, it would be entirely appropriate for them to step into local churches and say "Hey, you messed up here. Here's what you need to do."

The question that raises is--in the absence of the apostles, where does their authority go? The answer is, the Scriptures--definitely not the elders of the church or the congregation. The congregation's authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does.
(Let's not forget that Paul told elders what to do, also, and--through a delegate, no less--held them accountable. 1 Tim.5:19-20)

So the arrangement of authority is hierarchical in the church (as it is in all of creation- e.g., Eph.6:12; 1Cor.11:3) and all levels derive their authority from Christ via the apostles/the Scriptures.
Nobody believes congregations outrank the apostles or the Bible.

Ted, much of your answer is not clear to me.
My laptop battery's about to go dead so I'll just say this for now:
The authority of the Scriptures and the authority of the apostles both derives from God Himself. Though the apostles were certainly under the authority of the Scriptures that were in existence at that point, they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.
So it isn't really valid to put them "under" the authority of what they were still creating.
Simply put, their office included the prophetic office and they were able to speak and write with the same authority as the Scriptures.

Consequently, the idea that Paul was responding "ad hoc" as you put it is not a problem. Much of what's in the epistles is an apostolic response to particular problems and the interpretive process involves discerning how their handling of particular problems relates to the problems we encounter today. As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles.

But there is nobody in the apostolic office today to take their role, so the interpretive process has to account for that.

Since you liked it so much I'll repeat: the authority of both the congregation and the elders derives from Scripture. Nobody disputes that.

I think I need to put my argument in different terms, perhaps.

First, the writers of Scripture, both OT and NT wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Though little is revealed about that process, what we find is that the apostles, like the OT prophets, were able to speak and write and direct matters with God's authority. They were not personally infallible, but whenever inspired spoke or wrote infallibly. Some would insist that only writing prophets were "inspired," but the point is that they received their message either directly from God and quoted it or received it in a more mysterious way in which they responded to problems they observed, did their own thinking, used their own thoughts and vocabulary yet wrote the very words of God.
The apostles did more than repeat the teaching of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:12). They did create Scripture (though not on their own, of course).

But we're off topic really. It's probably not that releveant. What happens in 1 Cor. 6 is that someone at a level of authority, let's call it level B, stepped into the Corinthian church and commanded the congregation to act. His instructions to them were from his own authority as an apostle, given to him by Christ. Who has authority level B today? Not a person, but the Scriptures--the teaching of the apostles in written form.

So the timeless principle is: "congregation has the task of acting in accordance with Scripture," not "congregation acts as directed by some elders." There are no elders in 1 Cor. 6. This is consistent with 1 Cor5.4-5 where Paul instructs the church to gather and act to discipline the immoral professing brother. Why didn't he simply say "I have judged him, tell him I said he is delivered to Satan"? He doesn't do that. It's true he says "I have judged him" but Paul goes out of his way to tell the church to gather and act in concert. They were all fully aware already of what was going on--so they did not have evidence to weigh, etc. But it's quite significant that the apostle instructs the body to gather and do what it should have already done without him.
Again, no elders mentioned. The body is supposed to do it.

I'm afraid I'm lost as to what you're trying to say.
Nobody teaches that congregations have more authority than Scripture. In 1Cor.6, Paul instructs them to use their authority in obedience to Scripture.

1Cor.5 is relevant because ch.6 is going to be consistent with it.