Should Congregations Vote to Discipline?
Several weeks ago a pastor called, heartbroken and wondering what to do next. The church he pastored (Southern Baptist) had voted down a church discipline matter. The facts were plain: a man in the church had been privately confronted multiple times in accordance to Jesus’ words in Matthew 18, but had only become more rude and more arrogant toward those calling him to repentance. He interrupted the preaching, held secret meetings and slandered those in leadership. Yet, when the matter was brought to the congregation as instructed in Matthew 18:17, the majority of those present voted against calling on the man to repent.
The pastor, who had been at the church less than a year, resigned soon after the vote. The vote proved to him that the majority of church members distrusted the leaders and himself, and did not want to call the individual to repentance. In fact, the man who was exonerated by vote enjoyed a reputation in the church as a significant leader in his own right, thus explaining why they trusted him more than their new pastor. The pastor believed the majority did not want to follow him or the Bible, and now, along with a group of ex-members, has agreed to their request to plant a new church.
What went right
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). The facts of the situation show that he and others in the church were doing right by being faithful to the church member and the Lord.
What went wrong
When it came to their fellow member and the charge of sin, the members of the church were being asked to act as this man’s judge and jury. Their vote would reveal if they believed him guilty or innocent of the accusation of sin, and either result in an end of the discipline, or a continuation of it. As judges and juries are inclined to do in this world, they judged wrongly. They exonerated a sinning member while losing a pastor who was willing to take a confrontational stand on an issue of sin and righteousness.
Does Matthew 18 teach that the congregation has authority?
Those who believe that the congregation should vote in church discipline cases (a popular practice called congregationalism) insist the entire church is the final authority in judging cases of church discipline because the two phrases in Matthew 18:17, “tell it to the church” and “if he refuses to listen even to the church.”
From these words two conclusions are drawn. First, Matthew 18:15-17 shows an ascending authority from one-to-one confrontation (v. 15) to small group confrontation (v. 16) that ends with church confrontation (v. 17). Therefore, the congregation has the greatest authority. The second claim is that the unrepentant offender can be put out of the church only after the entire church has been involved. In other words, no one can be put out of the church by only a few in the church, such as the leaders. Therefore, the only rightful authority in excommunication is the entire church.
But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16). Nowhere in Matthew 18 does Jesus ask the congregation to approve or disapprove on the evidence of the witnesses and thereby on the guilt and innocence of the offender. Rather, He commands the church members to respond to the certain evidence of the witnesses by submissively confronting the unrepentant member.
The Lord Himself placed the determinative authority of church discipline in the judgment of the two or three. He tasks them, and not the church, with the responsibility to prove unrepentant sin in Matthew 18:16. In the passage, Jesus further explains that He and the Father determine the guilt or innocence in concert with the two or three witnesses before the congregation ever hears it:
If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matt. 18:19–20).
The “two or three” refer back to the agreement of the “two or three witnesses” of verse 16. God the Father and God the Son affirm and defend the work of the two or three witnesses in establishing the factuality of impenitence. Since the first two persons of the Godhead affirm the evidence of the witnesses, what need is there for a church to vote and rule on that which the first two persons of the Trinity have already ratified? Jesus did not say, “If the church agrees about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven,” but “If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” Thus He exalts the judgment of the witnesses so that the church may hear the witnesses’ testimony as exactly reflecting His own. Jesus did not command the church to establish any facts or to rule or judge on the testimony of the witnesses. The Son of God gave this responsibility to the two or three witnesses alone.
Creating Further Sin
Sadly, men’s ways can get involved in these matters and really make a mess of things. For example, congregational voting in the case of an unrepentant member could create a serious breach of faith with Christ. What if a church decides to discipline out an impenitent member by vote, but some in the church vote not to remove him? Those who vote not to remove the unrepentant member have sinned against the Lord by establishing their own verdict of innocence that opposes what the Lord already ratified (Matt. 18:20). In such a case they have sinned against the Father’s established judgment (Matt. 18:18–19), Jesus’ established evidence (Matt. 18:20), their fellow church members (1 Cor. 1:10), and the two or three witnesses who went through the difficult labor of establishing the evidence (Matt. 18:16). Or, in the case referred to above, the majority of members simply vote contrary to the evidence and annul the discipline process. Based on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18, they now need to be called to repentance for their sinful vote, not just privately, but before the whole church.
What God Does Want the Church to Do
The difficult ministry in church discipline is not holding a church vote but rather ensuring that the evidence of hardened and unrepentant sin is “true and certain” (Deut. 17:5). That difficulty is followed by another – telling the congregation to fulfill its obligation to the erring member. That congregational obligation is enjoined upon the members to go and tell the impenitent member to repent of the sins they were told about – the sins announced to the congregation that were established as factual.
Like the individual of Mat. 18:15 and the witnesses of Mat. 18:16, the members of the congregation should go and speak to the member, asking him to repent. Jesus teaches the church that if he “will not listen” he is to be put out (v. 17). “Listen” in verse 17 means the same thing as it does in verses 15 and 16. It is the unrepentant man “personally hearing and turning” from his sin. The congregation is not called by Jesus to be the man’s judge and jury, but, as brothers and sisters in Christ, they are to go and try to reclaim a lost sheep (Matthew 18:12–14).
Most of Matthew 18:16 blends Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15, showing that our Lord expects the two or three witnesses to understand their role in light of Old Testament teaching. In those texts, the Old Testament Israelite people were commanded to put to death anyone convicted by only two or three witnesses for sins such as idolatry or homicide. It was not the people’s responsibility to vote on whether the witnesses had performed due diligence and full discovery in establishing the factuality of the accusations. God Himself required the witnesses to do that hard work in submission to local judges (Deuteronomy 16:18), just as Christ tells New Testament witnesses in the New Testament church to “establish the evidence,” who then submit their evidence to the church’s elders.
Having a congregation vote on matters of sin and righteousness is a recipe for disaster. The complexities of people’s sins are intricate and thorny matters that defy public meetings. Church members simply don’t have the heart or time to investigate such matters thoroughly before rendering a judgment, nor do they often have the Christian maturity to do so. This is why witnesses must establish the facts of impenitence under the care of qualified leaders for they are acting to defend the holiness of Christ and His purifying power in the congregation. They establish the facts so we don’t have to.
You see, if we make voting decisions on intricate matters without the enormous amount of effort that Jesus expects of the two or three witnesses we end up practicing the sin of presumption on other people’s guilt and innocence. We also imply that the two or three witnesses were unfaithful to Christ because we, their fellow church members, must approve or disapprove their findings with our vote. In part that is why so few congregational churches practice church discipline—voting makes the process tangled, convoluted, and political.
The role of church leaders
Jesus doesn’t refer to church leadership in Matthew 18, but that doesn’t mean that church discipline should be decided on by just any two or three people in the church. Beginning in Matthew and finishing in Revelation, Jesus reveals the church in “progressive revelation.” What is only sketched out briefly in Matthew 18 is filled in by Acts and the New Testament letters. The apostolic letters always work within the framework of Jesus’ teaching, and their teaching on discipline is no different. Later New Testament passages fully rely upon Matthew 18 but add the details of elder involvement (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:19–22, Titus 1:5–16, 1 Thess. 5:12–14, 3 John 10). At the time of Jesus’ teaching on the church in Matthew 18 no one but Him even knew what a local church was. So He doesn’t give us the details of church leadership in His first teaching on it, but instead gives us the essentials of how to restore a wandering Christian, and how to put an unrepentant person out of His church. Jesus thought it best to leave to the epistles to explain the role of leaders in the process.
In the epistles the elders are called by Christ to oversee and shepherd the flock (1 Tim. 3:1, 1 Tim. 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1), so the witnesses must meet with one or more elders to inform them of the situation. Prior to telling the church of someone’s sin, the elders will look into the matter themselves according to the nature of the situation and the skill of the witnesses. Their role requires them to make certain of impartial evidence and proper confrontation as described by the Lord in Matthew 18 and other New Testament passages.
Conclusion
Jesus doesn’t ask for a vote in Matthew 18 because in matters of sin and righteousness voting is worthless. He doesn’t want you be your brother’s judge and jury but to be involved in the godly work of restoring him as a wandering sheep. Actually, Jesus is merciful to involve you in the restoration process by telling you to go and confront your errant brother. He doesn’t need or want your vote nor is Jesus concerned with the “voice of the congregation.” Instead, His voice tells us to call our wandering brother to repentance. It isn’t obedient to answer Him, “we’ll vote on it.”
Ted Bigelow Bio
Ted Bigelow earned the MDiv and ThM at The Master’s Seminary and has a doctorate in expository preaching from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He pastors Grace Church in Hartford, CT and has been married to Deena since 1987. They are blessed with 4 children who, by God’s mercy, love the Lord: Katie (20), Karryn (18), Daniel (15) and David (13).
- 197 views
[Shaynus] And Jeff Brown is doing a great job at countering these arguments. If ironing is sharpening iron, then Jeff Brown’s carbon count is a little higher in my view.Hi Shaynus,
I think this is also a wonderful thread. Being a congregationalist, how would you have remedied the situation described in Ted’s post? Or are you ok with the conclusion of the events in that particular church (a church split, etc…)?
J
[R.G.Murray]Hi R. G.,[Ted Bigelow]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.)[R.G.Murray] But they are voting on his repentance, not his guilt or innocence.Hi R. G.,
Forgive me, I’m just going to ask you a question on your final line from your post. Is repentance not a matter of guilt or innocence?
Kindly allow me to encourage you to reconsider your comment, “his unrepentant spirit is a further sin, in fact the major sin for which he will experience the discipline.”
I would absolutely agree with you that the reason for the matter even coming before the church is the man’s impenitence. But I’m doubtful that is the major issue in church discipline. Isn’t it rather the sin which the man is impenitent about?
So if you won’t mind, I’d like to expand out the thread a bit here to some other issues that you didn’t bring up, but need to be exposed IMO.
When Jesus says “tell it to the church” (Mat. 18:17) the it is not the man’s impenitence. That’s obvious, otherwise the situation would never come before the church in the first place. The it of Mat. 18:17 is the factuality of the sin that the witnesses of Mat. 18:16 have established. IOW, he really is guilty of sins x, y, and z. Therefore the church is not to ask the person to repent of impenitence, but of adultery, thievery, or whatever sin x, y, and z may be.
For example, when Paul calls on the Corinthian church to put out the immoral man (1 Cor. 5), he does not mention the man’s impenitence (which is obvious), but his sin of immorality. That is what the man has to repent of. Hopefully this point is obvious and easily seen in the text.
Now to make a larger point that I hope exposes congregationalism.
In Mat. 18:17 Jesus wants the members of the church personally confronting the impenitent member about the sin, not voting on him. As I stated in the post, Jesus uses the word “listen” in connection with the church and the impenitent member in v. 17. “Listen” carries the same meaning in v. 17 as it does in v. 15, and v. 16. That’s pretty basic hermeneutics. But it’s a basic point that I fear is lost on congregationalists.
The word “listen” requires personal confrontation for the sin with a personal call to repent. This is its meaning in v. 15 and 16, and so also is then in v. 17. But congregationalists either don’t trust the congregation to go out and confront the impenitent (IMO), nor give them enough responsibility in the matter of restoring a wandering sheep (Mat. 18:12-14).
In fact, congregationalism replaces the Lord’s command to the congregation to go to the impenitent member and call him to repent for his sins with the novel concept of a vote, which is never even hinted at in the Lord’s words. A vote doesn’t have the power to call back sinners from their sin. Personal confrontation does, as seen in Mat. 18:15 and 16 – as well as many other passages (c.f. Luke 17:3-4). Voting is not an act of shepherding, but an act of judging, of deciding.
Congregationalists mistakenly think that investing the members with a vote invests them with authority, when it actually strips them of true authority. Jesus wants His won to know His spiritual power as they become personally involved in restoring a wandering sheep by responding to His words in Mat. 18:17 in faith. Doing the hard work of confrontation obeys the Lord and gives true authority to the congregation in the eyes of the Lord. This authority is not like the world’s authority because by it people are called to obey His words and take real steps to help restore a wandering sheep. This requires involvement on a personal level – i.e., personal confrontation. Voting is impersonal and only renders a judgment. It offers no sanctifying power, for neither the apostles nor the Lord Jesus ever taught believers to do it.
Take the case I mentioned in the post. The man who was voted on had been personally confronted by several people but remained impenitent. Then came the vote, where he was judged innocent. That vote only hardened him in his sin and justified his prior impenitence.
Meanwhile, the ones who had done the hard work of establishing the evidence of sin, and had done the excruciating work of confronting the sin, where judged as doing wrong by the vote.
Everything got reversed. Now that man’s sin is justified, and the congregation that voted to exonerate him has their sinful vote justified. Those who did right were judged as doing wrong.
And so when a congregationalist says that the congregation exerts its authority in a vote, and is the final authority in the church, he/she ignores true spiritual authority and approves of such reversals. How could such a church retain its lampstand before the Lord?
If a church wants to start taking church discipline seriously, what would you suggest?
Ans:
My basic advice is not to do it—that is, do not do church discipline until your church membership is meaningful.
With most evangelical churches today, the membership is fairly meaningless. And it would be weird to have two deacons turn up on your front doorstep to confront you about adultery or gossip, because there’s been no natural conversation about your spiritual life. Not only should we be talking about football and the weather after worship, but also about our own self-denial or lack thereof, our response to the Word just preached, the way we choked up at that older member’s testimony, how we’ve cared for a distressed family, about our concern to evangelize Muslims in the area, and so on.
When it’s natural to have serious conversations about real life with each other, that’s when you can start practicing corrective discipline. And once you start doing these other things, once you see the culture of the congregation changed where it really is the shape of your discipleship and the center of your life, church discipline is as natural as can be.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/august/14.32.html?start=2
That does not happen in one year. The real problem in this instance had nothing to do with a vote.
My guess is that most of us involved on this website could tell a minimum of one horror story about Elder rule. Have you noticed that we have not been doing it? R.G. Murray and I have demonstrated that congregational church disciplline works with very positive results. It is to me somewhat telling that your only response is to try to parse our ideas. And all you have presented thus far is theory.
Jeff Brown
OK, I will try again. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 19:15 “that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”
Quote:
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).
Not sure I follow you here.
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.
My article equates the elders of the NT church to O.T. judges, which is why I referenced Deut. 16:18..
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.
Jeff Brown
The downfall (clearly shown here) is that the congregation may not follow scriptural guidelines regarding when, how, and why such measures should be taken. This pastor did the right thing to resign seeing that he really was not their “Pastor” after all. I only skimmed the article though so I do not recall any details as to why this person was brought up to the Church for such disciplinary action.
Seems that an “Eldership Rule” would be more consistent regarding Church Discipline so long as it adhered to strict, biblical principles and it was clear that this eldership had the best interests of the congregation in mind.
There should be some checks and balances involved seeing that no one is perfect and that there really is no hard, fast rule regarding the actual governing structure of a Church (though some may argue this point). The key is ACCOUNTABILITY to ensure you do not have a single pastor in an absolute “Dictator” situation calling all the shots nor do you have some “Head Deacon” or “Trustee” in the congregation who has a sizable (and unbiblical) influence over everyone else.
Also, we should always remember the end goal in Church discipline is RESTORATION. Should never be retaliatory or punitive.
[Jeff Brown] That does not happen in one year. The real problem in this instance had nothing to do with a vote.Hey Dr. Jeff,
My guess is that most of us involved on this website could tell a minimum of one horror story about Elder rule. Have you noticed that we have not been doing it? R.G. Murray and I have demonstrated that congregational church disciplline works with very positive results. It is to me somewhat telling that your only response is to try to parse our ideas. And all you have presented thus far is theory.
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
We almost agree. I think the facts of the original sin need to be established before the church. (See post #22).
The accused person needs an opportunity to explain to the church (if he can, or is willing to try) whatever mitigating circumstances he thinks justifies his sin.
The church hears the matter. Everyone is given a opportunity to defend the person. There is no vote at this meeting.
Now, the body is admonished to lovingly confront the person for a reasonable amount of time. How long is left up to the leadership. But at some future date it needs to be determined if the person is repenting and listening to the church about their sin.
Now frankly, the leadership at this point could either just announce the person is unrepentant and take them off the rolls. Or they could take a vote to see who thinks he has repented. On a practical level calling his “supporters” to publicly acknowledge has hasn’t repented is a good thing. Like Joshua, ask them to choose this day whom they will obey? God and his word or someone else? Like Elijah on Mt. Carmel asked the nation to decided to either serve God or Baal. Asking people to publicly make a stand one way or the other isn’t unbiblical.
Personally I’m not all that hung up about the church taking a vote. You can be opposed to voting all you would like, but you can’t make people attend your church so you might want to find out what people think before you watch half the place walk out the door, or they hold a meeting and hand you your walking papers. A public vote has a way of making this fairly clear.
As to Matthew 18:17 - clearly the antecedent to the pronoun “it” is the “his fault” of verse 15. But it is the sin of - “if he refuses to listen to the church” (that is - his unrepentant attitude), this is what you put him out of the church for, he refuses to listen. Obviously his original sin is part of what he refuses to repent of as well, but the passage clearly states it is his refusal to listen that causes the church to treat him like an outsider, because he has placed himself outside the authority of the church. It is not adultery, or X Y Z that places him outside the church, it is his refusal to listen to the church about these sins. If he listened and repented he could be a part of the church even if he is a forgiven adulterer or thief or liar. But if he won’t listen, then he is put out.
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.
[article] As judges and juries are inclined to do in this world, they judged wrongly. They exonerated a sinning member while losing a pastor who was willing to take a confrontational stand on an issue of sin and righteousness.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?
[article] the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16).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.
[article] Thus He exalts the judgment of the witnesses so that the church may hear the witnesses’ testimony as exactly reflecting His own. Jesus did not command the church to establish any facts or to rule or judge on the testimony of the witnesses. The Son of God gave this responsibility to the two or three witnesses alone.So now we have infallible witnesses? What if they do not agree among themselves? Where does Scripture teach witness infallibility?
[article] The difficult ministry in church discipline is not holding a church vote but rather ensuring that the evidence of hardened and unrepentant sin is “true and certain” (Deut. 17:5).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.
[article] The congregation is not called by Jesus to be the man’s judge and jury, but, as brothers and sisters in Christ, they are to go and try to reclaim a lost sheep (Matthew 18:12–14).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.
[article] You see, if we make voting decisions on intricate matters without the enormous amount of effort that Jesus expects of the two or three witnesses…Who is ensuring that they make this effort? It must be the congregation. There is no one else.
[article] Jesus doesn’t ask for a vote in Matthew 18 because in matters of sin and righteousness voting is worthless. He doesn’t want you be your brother’s judge and jury but to be involved in the godly work of restoring him as a wandering sheep. Actually, Jesus is merciful to involve you in the restoration process by telling you to go and confront your errant brother. He doesn’t need or want your vote nor is Jesus concerned with the “voice of the congregation.” Instead, His voice tells us to call our wandering brother to repentance. It isn’t obedient to answer Him, “we’ll vote on it.”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.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The primary text under discussion here is Matthew 18:15-20. It is a text couched in a broader discourse that deals with problems and forgiveness. Most all agree that the immediate text is about restoration and discipline. The primary goal is to restore a brother. The tragic secondary outcome is the result of having to discipline an unrepentant brother. If we step back from the minutia of the text and take the broad look, we see a basic procedure that is the main subject. First individual encounter, then the personal encounter by the first individual with two witnesses, finally they are to take it to the assembly. The statement concerning the assembly is quite clear. “Tell it to the assembly and if he refuses to even hear the assembly let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector” (verse 17 NKJV). This appears to be the final step of the procedure as from here the unrepentant person is to not be treated as a believer. There is no higher court of appeal. This is also clearly the main point of the passage. That which follows regarding the “binding and loosing” appears to be a direct reference to what just went before. The main subject is a three step procedure for restoration or discipline. It is given heavenly authority. This part of the passage is clear and easy to understand. The discussion regarding the two or three gathered and the two witnesses is subservient to the main subject and its clarity. They must be seen in the light of the clear statements giving final authority without appeal.
If I may repeat for emphasis. The purpose of this passage is to set forth a three step procedure of restoration. The last step is the assembly. The assembly is to be told the problem and the person who is unrepentant is to hear from the assembly. His hearing from the assembly is the last step before being cast out. The assembly is clearly set forth as the final court. There is no step given beyond the assembly.
I have checked several commentaries on this for a reminder. Every commentary I have makes the assembly the final authority in this passage. William Hendickson, RCH Lenski, and several others all agree on this. These are worthy of our consideration.
There has been a good discussion on the witnesses. I would thank Jeff for his input here. However, regardless of ones opinion there, it cannot overshadow the main subject here. This is about a procedure that ends with the assembly. No Elders are in view here. The passages on Elders do give them servanthood authority in the assembly. But here the assembly stands alone as the final authority.
From my experience as both a pastor and as an assembly member, this is an important subject. I entered Central Baptist Seminary in 1972 as a 32 year old with prior professional and church ministry experience. I graduated at age 35. I have attended other schools. Since that time I have witnessed tremendous changes in North American assemblies (churches). Congregational government has its problems. Elder rule has its problems. However, Elder rule without congregational vote or final authority has its problems. At this present time, and from my present observations, it has the biggest problems of all. Some may disagree with my observations on this.
Matthew 18:17 is a passage clearly indicating that the Lord has great respect for the assembly of believers and that they are a final arbiter for problems. The assembly stands above all. It is the final earthly authority and as part of the Bride of Christ submits to His headship of the assembly of the Saints.
[Bob T.]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.
There has been a good discussion on the witnesses. I would thank Jeff for his input here. However, regardless of ones opinion there, it cannot overshadow the main subject here. This is about a procedure that ends with the assembly. No Elders are in view here. The passages on Elders do give them servanthood authority in the assembly. But here the assembly stands alone as the final authority.
Matthew 18:17 is a passage clearly indicating that the Lord has great respect for the assembly of believers and that they are a final arbiter for problems. The assembly stands above all. It is the final earthly authority and as part of the Bride of Christ submits to His headship of the assembly of the Saints.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
[Jeff Brown] Sorry, I couldn’t help but answer also. Ted begins all his articles with a horror story from churches that vote. Number 3 was the least convincing of all. Had the pastor asked me what to do, I would have answered, “You have been there one year? Don’t do it. The people don’t trust you that much yet. Either you will cause a split or be out of a job or both. Just because your cause is righteous doesn’t mean people will follow you. Fast and pray and watch God work.”I must confess Jeff, my first reaction to the situation was the same…. “sheesh, you’ve only been there less than a year?” But wanting to understand the situation before judging it I asked a number of questions and took some time for follow-up. After getting to know the pastor a bit better I think what he did was faithful. He acted with integrity to both the word of God and the souls of those involved. As I wrote,
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).Such men deserve the support of spiritually minded men. Losing a pastoral position is hard for a man with the heart of a shepherd, especially when he knows that he could have kept it by turning a blind eye to sin.
My guess is that most of us involved on this website could tell a minimum of one horror story about Elder rule. Have you noticed that we have not been doing it? R.G. Murray and I have demonstrated that congregational church disciplline works with very positive results. It is to me somewhat telling that your only response is to try to parse our ideas. And all you have presented thus far is theory.I shared my horror story in post #33. I think J Ditlev is just trying to understand your thoughts better. I’m sure he respects you and loves you in the Lord.
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.
[Ted Bigelow] I shared my horror story in post #33. I think J Ditlev is just trying to understand your thoughts better. I’m sure he respects you and loves you in the Lord.Thanks Ted…I’m just in the business of asking questions, lots and lots of questions…it’s what PhDs or future PhDs do - in fact it may be all that we do at times ;-)
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
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.Have you noticed the connection in Deut. 17:7 to the pattern I have been describing in Mat. 18:17? The congregation stoned to death the offender after the witnesses (who testified under the local judges) have spoken (capital cases only). The congregation had to do this in response to the word of God. They did not vote, nor did they get to cross examine the witnesses. Instead the people were required to submits to the testimony and judgment of others, and that in a most demonstrative way (stoning).
In the NT the congregation likewise submits to the witnesses after the elders have overseen the matter and established the factuality of the witness testimony to impenitent sin. I am afraid it is congregationalism’s desire that the witnesses submit their finding to the group for evaluation and vote that introduces a severe disjunction between the N.T. and the O.T.
In reality, you expect the church to submit without any question to the elders.Questions always come in these situations and are to be answered patiently and with instruction, as good shepherds must. However, we ought not answer questions in any way that might break confidence with those directly involved in the situation, such as family or people outside the church who ought to have their privacy protected.
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.Since elders are tasked to oversee the congregation they are to have full charge authority over the congregation in submission to many Scriptures, such as 1 Thess. 5:12-14, 1 Tim. 5:17ff, Heb. 13:17. It isn’t necessary for Scripture to tell us in addition that the elders oversee discipline since that is part of congregational life: “shepherd the flock among you, exercising oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2). If the elders don’t oversee congregational discipline, they violate the word of God. Jeff, consider the elders in Titus 1:5, the explanatory “gar” in 1:10, and the required rebuke in 1:13, and 2:15. Scripture rarely gives us propositional statements in the form we might desire, but does answer our questions.
As I wrote,
Jesus doesn’t refer to church leadership in Matthew 18, but that doesn’t mean that church discipline should be decided on by just any two or three people in the church. Beginning in Matthew and finishing in Revelation, Jesus reveals the church in “progressive revelation.” What is only sketched out briefly in Matthew 18 is filled in by Acts and the New Testament letters. The apostolic letters always work within the framework of Jesus’ teaching, and their teaching on discipline is no different. Later New Testament passages fully rely upon Matthew 18 but add the details of elder involvement (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:19–22, Titus 1:5–16, 1 Thess. 5:12–14, 3 John 10). At the time of Jesus’ teaching on the church in Matthew 18 no one but Him even knew what a local church was. So He doesn’t give us the details of church leadership in His first teaching on it, but instead gives us the essentials of how to restore a wandering Christian, and how to put an unrepentant person out of His church. Jesus thought it best to leave to the epistles to explain the role of leaders in the process.
Featured Resource
Discussion