"Our action in removing members was motivated fundamentally by a desire to become a more biblically-functioning church"
Church Disciplines 575 Members In our monthly Members Meeting, I read a recommendation that included the names of all 575 members to be excluded from membership. The recommendation was seven pages long, and we took the time to read every name on the list. It was very sobering. Our by-laws call for a ballot vote in removing members, so we voted by ballot.
Hi Larry,
I believe a church is to be led by elders, who have the final authority, as granted by Scripture. I do not believe the congregation has that final authority. Therein lies most of our differences.
A lot of your questions and comments assume that the congregation has ultimate authority. My statements reflect a different understanding.
Have you interacted with the Scripture on Mat. 18 - the “refuse to listen” comments I wrote above? If I understand the Lord’s words correctly here, the church is to go in the same manner to the impenitent as the witnesses do. While applying that is always a challenge, it resists the idea of a vote.
I like to discuss these things with men like yourself. I always learn things, so thanks. You are correct in your statements on “hatred” above. I was just searching for a good biblical phrase. “Hatred” seems too strong, like I’m assuming the worst (as you rightly say). The problem here is that the sin of non-attendance is one of omission, not commission. Any other thoughts on identifying the sin with a biblical name?
And here’s another thought for you, just to keep your juices flowing. ;) Just like the texts cited don’t refer to votes, Acts 6 doesn’t refer to deacons. You have to read that into the text. The word for “deaconing” is used in Acts 6:2 and 6:4, but refers to the apostles. Surely if Luke wanted to identify the 7 as deacons, he had the vocabulary. Yet, as led by the Holy Spirit, he did not.
I believe a church is to be led by elders, who have the final authority, as granted by Scripture. I do not believe the congregation has that final authority. Therein lies most of our differences.
A lot of your questions and comments assume that the congregation has ultimate authority. My statements reflect a different understanding.
Have you interacted with the Scripture on Mat. 18 - the “refuse to listen” comments I wrote above? If I understand the Lord’s words correctly here, the church is to go in the same manner to the impenitent as the witnesses do. While applying that is always a challenge, it resists the idea of a vote.
I like to discuss these things with men like yourself. I always learn things, so thanks. You are correct in your statements on “hatred” above. I was just searching for a good biblical phrase. “Hatred” seems too strong, like I’m assuming the worst (as you rightly say). The problem here is that the sin of non-attendance is one of omission, not commission. Any other thoughts on identifying the sin with a biblical name?
And here’s another thought for you, just to keep your juices flowing. ;) Just like the texts cited don’t refer to votes, Acts 6 doesn’t refer to deacons. You have to read that into the text. The word for “deaconing” is used in Acts 6:2 and 6:4, but refers to the apostles. Surely if Luke wanted to identify the 7 as deacons, he had the vocabulary. Yet, as led by the Holy Spirit, he did not.
Larry, I’ve been back and forth with Ted on this as well and agree with your assessment of the NT evidence. The clearest verse for me is 2 Cor. 2:6—“For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough…” Somehow, the majority made known its desire to inflict punishment on this individual. How did they do so? The most natural way is by some kind of vote, whether by voice, hand, or ballot. If there are other alternatives, I’m certainly open to hearing them.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I believe a church is to be led by elders, who have the final authority, as granted by Scripture. I do not believe the congregation has that final authority. Therein lies most of our differences.I assumed that was the case. Here’s my quick response to that. Matt 18 says “let him hear the church” not “the elders.” There is (as you know) a great Greek word for “elders” and Matt 18 doesn’t use it. 1 Cor 5 also makes no mention of the elders. It is written to the church. I don’t see any biblical support for the elders determining who is in and out of the church. The only places I can recall where it is explicitly mentioned, it is given to the church body.
Have you interacted with the Scripture on Mat. 18 - the “refuse to listen” comments I wrote above? If I understand the Lord’s words correctly here, the church is to go in the same manner to the impenitent as the witnesses do. While applying that is always a challenge, it resists the idea of a vote.I don’t think so at all. I think the listening is the same. The question is, how does “a church” speak in such a way as to be refused to be heard? In your scenario, what is the difference between two and three who go privately (not individually) and the church? You seem to be suggesting that those who know the person equals “the church” (first mistake, IMO), and that they should go individually not together (I don’t want to misread you there, but I don’t imagine you envision several hundred people doing this at once, though that in itself would be a vote). So how would a church speak in a way as to be heard? You can switch that to “elders” in spite of the word “church” being used.
I think Jesus’ commands envision four steps: Individual, two or three, church, eviction.
The individual, witnesses, and church each speak as one. The witnesses don’t speak as “two or three” but as one in agreement. the church likewise speaks as a body.
BTW, to me, the better argument IMO is to argue that Jesus was speaking pre-church. That is an argument that, IMO, is harder to answer. But my suspicion is that you think there was a church there and so you can’t make the only argument that is difficult.
The problem here is that the sin of non-attendance is one of omission, not commission.I have never found that distinction particularly helpful in my thinking. I know it’s a common one and I don’t want to minimize it too much, but I don’t see how that helps. It is still a sin: You made a promise to the body in light of the biblical injunctions and are failing to keep it. Whether that’s omission or commission hardly matters, so far as I can see.
Any other thoughts on identifying the sin with a biblical name?I would say failing to assemble is the biblical description for it. Failing to keep your commitments is another one, provided the church covenant is emphasized as a summary of biblical commitment.
Just like the texts cited don’t refer to votes, Acts 6 doesn’t refer to deacons. You have to read that into the text. The word for “deaconing” is used in Acts 6:2 and 6:4, but refers to the apostles. Surely if Luke wanted to identify the 7 as deacons, he had the vocabulary. Yet, as led by the Holy Spirit, he did not.That is certainly an interpretive point about which there is some division. Whatever the conclusion that, I think Acts 6 does at least one thing very clearly: Put the choice of whatever it was in the body of the congregation. The elders did not choose. It was given to the congregation.
As for “deacon,” I think the description in Acts 6 is that of the work of deacon. I am fine with objection, because the rest of the NT makes clear that there is an office of deacon. Apart from Acts 6, there is no real description of what they might do, however.
The only objection to the article that I felt strongly was the headline, which frames the entire conversation inaccurately IMO. It primes us to view the action of the church as being a church discipline, which it isn’t. The folk whose membership was removed have committed no immoral acts and have not been disfellowshipped. Their names were erased from a database.
What concrete evidence do we have in Scripture for mandated church membership as we use the term today? People can attend a church faithfully for years without ever becoming a member, while others get their name on the books and seldom darken the door. Who is really ‘right with God’? Church membership is a utilitarian formality more than anything else.
So on the one hand I can understand the need for cleaning up the membership rolls, but not the decision to frame their actions in this way. And it just dawned on me- I think what I’m doing is agreeing with Bro. Charlie.
What concrete evidence do we have in Scripture for mandated church membership as we use the term today? People can attend a church faithfully for years without ever becoming a member, while others get their name on the books and seldom darken the door. Who is really ‘right with God’? Church membership is a utilitarian formality more than anything else.
So on the one hand I can understand the need for cleaning up the membership rolls, but not the decision to frame their actions in this way. And it just dawned on me- I think what I’m doing is agreeing with Bro. Charlie.
[Susan R] People can attend a church faithfully for years without ever becoming a member, while others get their name on the books and seldom darken the door. Who is really ‘right with God’?It’s not an either-or situation. Independently, both are falling short in their relationships to with body.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I’m not trying to set up a false dichotomy- I’m just thinking about how much ‘stock’ we put into membership sometimes. But really- if someone attends a church faithfully for years, but never officially adds their name to the rolls, on what Scriptural basis would you say that their relationship to the body has fallen short?
If there is no membership,
- how do the elders know who they will be held accountable to God for?
- who does the church retain the ability to discipline?
- who does the body care for?
If a church takes membership seriously, why would someone persist in attending without joining, are they
- unwilling to commit to others?
- in disagreement with the doctrine? Why not find a church they can join?
- hesitant to shoulder responsibility? (including the responsibility to elect or affirm leaders and discipline the wayward)
I can maybe understand being a “regular attender” in a church that doesn’t value membership, but have a hard time seeing why a believer would not commit in a church that takes these things seriously.
- how do the elders know who they will be held accountable to God for?
- who does the church retain the ability to discipline?
- who does the body care for?
If a church takes membership seriously, why would someone persist in attending without joining, are they
- unwilling to commit to others?
- in disagreement with the doctrine? Why not find a church they can join?
- hesitant to shoulder responsibility? (including the responsibility to elect or affirm leaders and discipline the wayward)
I can maybe understand being a “regular attender” in a church that doesn’t value membership, but have a hard time seeing why a believer would not commit in a church that takes these things seriously.
Susan, I’d recommend this article from 9 Marks (Dever’s organization) for a defense of biblical church membership.
http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/separating-insiders-and-outsiders
http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/separating-insiders-and-outsiders
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] Susan, I’d recommend this article from 9 Marks (Dever’s organization) for a defense of biblical church membership.And http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/church-membership-and-nclhga] this article follows making a circumstantial argument from NT texts.
http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/separating-insiders-and-outsiders
[Greg Long] Larry, I’ve been back and forth with Ted on this as well and agree with your assessment of the NT evidence. The clearest verse for me is 2 Cor. 2:6—“For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough…” Somehow, the majority made known its desire to inflict punishment on this individual. How did they do so? The most natural way is by some kind of vote, whether by voice, hand, or ballot. If there are other alternatives, I’m certainly open to hearing them.Hey Greg, here’s a snippet from my book, regarding 2 Cor. 2:6:
“…for nothing is said about a majority vote. It would be just as fair to claim that a majority of the church closed a door in his face, issued a restraining order, or stayed away from his meat business. It’s all conjecture. The claim that a vote was taken only reads into the text what one hopes to find.
But there is no need for conjecture, for Paul tells us exactly what the majority did. They gave a “punishment” (v. 6). The word translated “punishment” occurs 30 times in the New Testament and always refers either to a strong spoken reproof or to a strong spoken warning. It never refers to a written reproof or warning, and certainly not a vote. The meaning is simple. The majority of the congregation church gave the man a spoken reproof. This reproof accords perfectly with the Lord’s command in Luke 17:3: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.”
Greg, this interpretation also goes with the view that the man being punished is not the immoral man of 1 Cor. 5, who was put out of the church. This man was only in the 3rd stage of church discipline.
[Larry]I think the listening is the same. The question is, how does “a church” speak in such a way as to be refused to be heard?…. So how would a church speak in a way as to be heard? You can switch that to “elders” in spite of the word “church” being used.Thanks for replying to my question, Larry, and thanks for thinking through the text. However, I’m still left unsatisfied.
Its pretty obvious to me you are trying to squeeze two differnet things out of the same words: “listen to them”(Matthew 18:17). You want the personal confrontation of the witnesses to be the same as a vote from the church. They aren’t the same.
First, you claim a vote to be a voice. That’s just a little strange. A vote is not a voice. Its a vote. A voice is something spoken. You are reading into our Lord’s words your own presuppositions about voting - that they are a “voice.” Sorry, its just a vote.
Second, the two or threes witnesses have spoken to the offender of his sin. That’s a voice. That’s why the Lord says, “that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (Matthew 18:16). The word “mouth” refers to something spoken. It does not refer to a vote.
Then He uses the words, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (Matthew 18:17). Jesus equates the two. The offender not listening to the church is equated to the offender not listening to the witnesses. Since Jesus just explained that the witnesses use their “mouth” to speak to the offender, and then uses the exact same phrase to describe the church, it too must be by mouth. Do you see my point?
Yes, the church goes to the unrepentant. This takes time. It is done in line with biblical principles of confrontation, which never use voting. Voting never elicits repentance, but personal confrontation does. And that’s the context here - trying to bring the offender back, as a lost sheep. Yes, it is better done individually, or perhaps a few at a time. And in the church, all who wish to comply with the Lord’s words are encouraged to do so. Both those who do know the offender, and those who don’t.
You also assume that a church vote means the church speaks with one voice. C’mon! What about those who vote against the censure/excommunication? The vote doesn’t represent them. Its just another assumption that if the majority vote one way, it represents all. A false assumption. Or, what about this. The church votes to not discipline the man, but his sin is established by the “mouth of two or three witnesses.” Now you have tow different judgments. Who is right? In congregational polity, the congregation is right. But if the man is indeed impenitent, the congregation voted sinfully.
For the role of elders in church discipline, we use the letters of the NT for additional light. Since they are given authority over the body in many texts, this authority carries through in the matter of discipline as well.
I’m not opposed to church membership, and I do believe that there is a NT Biblical pattern joining oneself to a local body- what isn’t defined is what the act of ‘joining’ entails, and what requirements that places on the member.
For example- requirements for membership can range from making a profession of faith and being Scripturally baptized, to signing off on the church doctrinal statement and constitution, to taking 6 weeks of membership classes. And once someone has become a member, what is required of them as far as attendance and participation before they forfeit membership status?
Questions that come to mind- does it ‘count’ if one ministers in one’s neighborhood and not through a recognized church ministry? If someone regularly attends the church who is not a member, but is living in unrepentant sin, why can’t the church disfellowship the wayward brother whether they are a member or not? What if someone attends (but does not join) who is immersed in false doctrine and tries to spread their teachings- do they have to be a member before they can be asked to leave? Is church leadership somehow restricted to ministering only to those who formally join the church? Some churches have their leaders appoint deacons and teachers instead of having the congregation vote, so that isn’t always an aspect of membership.
I’m pulling a Steve Davis here- trying to ask questions to explore the topic without making declarations.
While I believe most can agree that one should join a local church, I doubt very many can agree on all the requirements and ramifications.
For example- requirements for membership can range from making a profession of faith and being Scripturally baptized, to signing off on the church doctrinal statement and constitution, to taking 6 weeks of membership classes. And once someone has become a member, what is required of them as far as attendance and participation before they forfeit membership status?
Questions that come to mind- does it ‘count’ if one ministers in one’s neighborhood and not through a recognized church ministry? If someone regularly attends the church who is not a member, but is living in unrepentant sin, why can’t the church disfellowship the wayward brother whether they are a member or not? What if someone attends (but does not join) who is immersed in false doctrine and tries to spread their teachings- do they have to be a member before they can be asked to leave? Is church leadership somehow restricted to ministering only to those who formally join the church? Some churches have their leaders appoint deacons and teachers instead of having the congregation vote, so that isn’t always an aspect of membership.
I’m pulling a Steve Davis here- trying to ask questions to explore the topic without making declarations.
While I believe most can agree that one should join a local church, I doubt very many can agree on all the requirements and ramifications.
[Ted Bigelow]…Voting never elicits repentance…Really? I know of instances where the official action of the church to remove a person from the body did bring about repentance.
[Ted Bigelow] You also assume that a church vote means the church speaks with one voice. C’mon! What about those who vote against the censure/excommunication? The vote doesn’t represent them. Its just another assumption that if the majority vote one way, it represents all. A false assumption. Or, what about this. The church votes to not discipline the man, but his sin is established by the “mouth of two or three witnesses.” Now you have tow different judgments. Who is right? In congregational polity, the congregation is right. But if the man is indeed impenitent, the congregation voted sinfully.These are no arguments against using the church as the final authority. The same arguments could be made against having the elders as the final authority. What if some of the elders didn’t want to continue the process of discipline, but the majority did? What if two or three witnesses accuse the man, but the elders decide not to continue the process of discipline?
For the role of elders in church discipline, we use the letters of the NT for additional light. Since they are given authority over the body in many texts, this authority carries through in the matter of discipline as well.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] Really? I know of instances where the official action of the church to remove a person from the body did bring about repentance.No. Conviction of sin brings about repentance, which is preceded by some form of ordinary confrontation. You are claiming something anecdotally; I am referring to the ordinary providence of God who speaks in Scripture. In Scripture He commands personal and spoken conforntation. He never commands, or intimates a church vote.
These are no arguments against using the church as the final authority.That wasn’t the context of the argument in the first place, Greg. Let’s interact on the point on hand - Mat. 18:16-7’s relationship to confrontation as opposed to voting.
What if two or three witnesses accuse the man, but the elders decide not to continue the process of discipline?That happens, and Scripture leads on how to respond. It may be that the accusation is not “established” (Mat. 18:16, Deut. 17:6, Deut. 19:15) and hence it would be wrong to proceed with discipline. Or, there are others valid reasons not to proceed. If there is not unanimity among the elders, the discipline doesn’t proceed. Eldership submits to the principle of unanimity, not majority rule, in line with 1 Cor. 1:10, Phil. 2:1-4, Rom. 15:5-6 and many other Scriptures.
Discussion