[11/26/20]
As concerns the local governance of the church it is inevitable, I suppose, that we should arrive at discipline as a necessary and fundamental feature of that governance. Arguably, if it were not for the necessity of discipline, we should have no particular need for governance. But it is the least favored aspect of governance. We like having our teachers, and in general I think we recognize the benefit of having those in place who look to the protection of God’s people from false doctrines and false teachers. Although, even there it is questionable how much we truly appreciate the gift given us in that protection. Let the guardianship arrive at a negative assessment of our particular views as to this teacher or that, or this teaching or that, and is it still valued, or now seen as overbearing action undertaken by a bunch of control freaks?
Sadly, I think we are too inclined to jump straight to the latter. After all, in my opinion whose opinion could possibly be more sound than my own? Surely, I am right and they are, if they disagree with me, quite clearly wrong. But this is evidence not of piety, but of overweening arrogant overvaluing of one’s own worth. All that being said, the necessity to guard the doctrines of Truth from incipient error is at the root of the necessity for discipline, and it must surely color how leader and led alike view the matter.
What do I mean by this? I mean, the elder, in undertaking the necessary duties of discipline does not do so as vengeful, nor does he do so with any sort of malice. It may be that I speak in terms of the ideal, and that no man living could truly rise to that ideal. But then, the elder does not, if he is wise (as he should be), undertake to fulfill his office in his own strength, but in the strength and gifting of the Lord who called him to that office. With man, you see, this is impossible, but with God, impossibility does not pertain. The elders, should they find it needful to take disciplinary action, do so out of loving concern, not unlike parental care for one’s own children.
Let us look at the other side of that situation; at the one undergoing disciplinary action. Here, too, we must consider first the ideal. Ideally, knowing his elders truly care for his well-being, and are truly men of God, the corrective word is heard with open ears, received by tender heart, and its desired outcome is achieved as repentance is brought forth and the disciplined one finds himself back on the paths of righteousness. Of course, here, too, the ideal is unlikely in the extreme given our fallen nature. It will require, I should think, a determined effort on the part of the disciplined to accept that discipline for its true worth. If, in fact, that one is a child of God, I expect in due course realization will dawn and repentance will come. It may not be so instance as those involved should prefer, but it will come. If it does not, I might go so far as to say that one being disciplined is not, in point of fact, a child of God (at least not yet), and is rightly excised from the body unless and until he should come to be a proper organ of said body.
In practice, I have no doubt one can find elders who have not exercised their disciplinary authority in godly fashion, and I can absolutely guarantee one can find members who have not received discipline in godly fashion. That speaks more to the sinfulness of man generally than it does to the validity of discipline. This is not some novel concept dreamed up by those who have a will to power. No. It has been the way of God all along, hasn’t it? Go back to the events at Mount Sinai, and hear Moses’ explanation to God’s people. “Out of the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; and on earth He let you see His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire” (Dt 4:36). Do you see it? Can you possibly miss it? This was a disciplinary action, this hearing of God’s voice upon the mountain. Why was it needful? Well, just look what Aaron and the boys were doing down at the mountain’s base while Moses was up topside. Straightway into idolatry, and him gone but a moment, and not even out of sight, given the cloud of glory atop the mountain where he was meeting God.
It comes up again. “Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his sons” (Dt 8:5). Here was cause to take His commandments seriously. He has the power to enforce them, and for your good (as a man disciplines his sons for their own good, not for his own amusement or ease) He will do so. And so, we find Solomon advising his reader, “My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD, or loathe His reproof, for whom the LORD loves He reproves, even as a father, the son in whom he delights” (Pr 3:11-12). Over and over he makes the point. Discipline and wisdom walk hand in hand. You cannot arrive at the latter if you reject the former. This, too, informs the elder in their exercise of necessary discipline, for it is clear indication of the goal and the spirit. “Discipline your son while there is hope, and do not desire his death” (Pr 19:18). That may sound severe to our ears, but really, that is the seriousness of the matter. Hear Paul explain it at a later date. “But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world” (1Co 11:32). This is the seriousness of the need for correction. It is a matter not of mortal peril, but immortal.
And so, we come to that lengthy reminder of discipline’s value in Hebrews. “You have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons” (Heb 12:5), upon which he turns to that very text of Proverbs which I have already quoted. “It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons” (Heb 12:7-8). I wonder how many parents, in the modern rush to avoid disciplinary actions against children as if it were abuse, would be able to hear these words as corrective rather than offensive! All around us, I dare say, we see the result of parents who refused to treat their children as legitimate, and to lovingly discipline them that they might become properly matured human beings, rather than petulant, tyrannical throwers of violent tantrums. “Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Heb 12:9-11).
As I say, a sadly large portion of our present-day society would likely take exception to the assumptions made in that passage. The results, I think, rather speak for themselves, and they don’t speak kindly.
But this ought to inform us as believers, as to the necessity and value of discipline. The goal is clear: that we might live peaceful lives of righteousness; that we might be made demonstrably true sons of our True Father. Would you prefer your comfort in illegitimacy? Really? When you take to heart that only the true sons of the Father are welcomed into His heaven to enjoy eternity with Him, while those who reject His parentage have aught but eternity in punishment to occupy their future, how could one find sense in rejecting His discipline? And, to begin to move my thoughts along the next step, on what basis shall we reject His discipline because He has chosen, in His perfect wisdom, to utilize certain men of His choosing as His secondary means for maintaining and enforcing discipline?
[11/27/20]
As to the exercise of discipline in the church, Matthew 18 is the primary point of reference, although I would have to say it is not the only point of reference. In fact, in widening my reference to encompass the whole chapter, I already expand somewhat from standard citation. I do so because so much of the discussion in that chapter really does serve to inform how the church deals with such matters. Think of the discussion of who is greatest, which opens that chapter. Jesus presents them a child, an insignificant distraction, as they viewed things. He doesn’t bring this child forward to discuss matters of primacy, but of exercising leadership. Yes, there is the explanation. “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:4), but it’s really shifting the conversation to what truly matters.
You see, before Jesus could deal with leadership, He had need to shift their thinking about leadership. He had to get them out of the lording mindset and into the serving mindset. He had to get them out of competition and into submission. So, there is that message regarding reception and stumbling. You receive this humble lad who believes in Me? You receive Me. You cause him to stumble? Woe to you! Watch lest you yourself stumble, and if you see that which causes you to stumble, eliminate it. Then comes the closing repeat admonition. “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 18:10).
I think it has to be seen that this is a message of much larger scope than how one treats children. It has to do with maturity of faith more than maturity of body. Don’t be an impediment to those freshly come to faith, but feed them, teach them, help them to grow. This isn’t a competition. It’s not about how everybody else is beneath you in their dignity or their understanding. It’s about how everybody, from the least to the greatest, is upon equal footing in Christ. We are on equal footing as to our need, for all have sinned without exception, and all stand guilty before the truly supreme court of God in heaven. We are on equal footing as to our salvation, for all who are saved are saved by God’s gracious choosing of them, not on the basis of their inherent goodness. How could it be their goodness, when they have none? We are on equal footing as image-bearers, created in the image of God to glorify God in our bearing of that image. We are all works in progress, all in need of growth, all in need of correction, and all assured of completion, because, “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Php 1:6).
Then comes, in the course of Matthew 18, the question of forgiveness. Jesus speaks of the one gone astray, and how the shepherd will leave the ninety-nine where they are to go rescue the one gone astray (Mt 18:12-14). What’s the message? “It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish” (Mt 18:14). Okay, much is made of this and similar statements. If it is not God’s will that any should perish, then if any perish, God’s will is not in fact incapable of failing. His will may not be done after all. Or, if God’s will is truly unfailing in achieving all that He purposes, then it must be that none ultimately perish, and everybody gets to heaven. But if that’s truly how this works, if Universalism has a valid basis, then frankly, the great bulk of the Bible is pointless. Why bother with identification of right and wrong if they don’t ultimately matter? Why spend so much effort declaring punishments and rewards if in fact the punishments are effectively fictions? How is God the God of Justice if Judgment is never exercised, and all receive the same reward, regardless of any qualifying criteria? It doesn’t work, and it’s not the point here.
To assess the point we must retain the reference. When we were discussing little ones, it was ‘little ones who believe in Me’. There is a scope, as setting of bounds upon the reference of all or of ‘any one’. It is ‘these little ones’, not children in general, not humanity in general. It is those whom the Father has called, has gifted to His Son, has adopted as His own little ones. It is His sheep, not just any sheep generally. The image returns.
All of this, however, is a message on leadership. And as such, it proceeds to the description of how discipline is to be exercised amongst those sheep who are the church. “If your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother” (Mt 18:15). Step one. It’s a personal matter. Keep it personal. Keep it private. Thus far, we might say, the sinner harms only himself, and if it can be contained and corrected here, marvelous! Dignity is uphold as well as sanctity, and the church is guarded by this discipline, though none the wiser as to its having happened.
But what if the brother proves reticent? “If he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Mt 18:16). Okay, what’s happening here? Well, disciplinary action is judicial action. The standard in God’s courts has always been that a single witness is mere hearsay. It may be true, or it may be false. The court has insufficient basis to assess the matter, particularly when you now effectively have one man’s word against another’s. We see this in the court of civil law, but that is largely because we find it here in the description of godly exercise of justice.
So, it’s not just any others who are to be brought along. It’s not an excuse to gossip. The one in authority is not granted to go on a whispering campaign. Did you hear what so and so did? No? Let me tell you all about it, and then, let us go confront this sorry individual with his crimes. No, that’s not it at all. If they are witnesses, it is presumably because they are likewise aware of the sin that must be confronted.
Now let me pause on that point. Awareness on their part presupposes involvement in the lives of those overseen. It implies significant involvement in the lives of the sheep who make up the local flock. You know their habits. You know what they’ve been up to, or are likely to have got up to. You have a strong sense of their stage of growth, whether they are new believers and readily led back to old habits of life, or whether they are more mature believers, yet still prone to wander.
This reality has an impact on what is required of leadership, although we are currently more tuned into the matter of discipline. You cannot exercise this sort of discipline if your leadership has been from aloof position. You cannot exercise this sort of discipline if your awareness of the goings on of those whom you would oversee are largely matters of ignorance to you. How shall you correct in private that of which you remain unaware until it has burst into public knowledge? That leaves you in the place of the firefighter, not the shepherd. The shepherd, if he is good, knows his sheep. And of course, the corollary also holds; that the sheep know their shepherd. They have cause to listen to him, for his wisdom is known to them, his care familiar to them, and his rod and his staff – guidance and correction – are a comfort to them (Ps 23:4).
That same familiarity and comfort ought reasonably to extend to those brought in as witness in this second stage of disciplinary action. It’s not to be any random couple of church members. The assumption here is that those who come as further witness are in leadership as well, are fellow shepherds, fellow elders and overseers of the church. This, too, has implications, and implications of which the sheep ought perhaps to have a clue. The elders, while held to a strict standard of privacy and the upholding of dignity by that first order disciplinary clause, are not sworn to secrecy amongst themselves. Conversations may be guarded, but where the wisdom of the plurality is needful for the sound furtherance of godly leadership, nothing precludes the sharing of information at this level.
Carry that back into phase two disciplinary action. It may well be that the elders, by their counsel, assess that the matter from phase one is not in fact a matter for further action. Perhaps there has been a misperception on the part of that shepherd pursuing disciplinary action, and it shall be needful for him to go and ask forgiveness of the one he has thus far disciplined. I would hope this is an extreme rarity, but shepherds are no more perfect than any other sheep, and the possibility is there. But, if in fact his concern is valid, and his basis for correction biblically sound, here are brothers with tested wisdom and understanding to confirm his point. They may not have the witness’s knowledge of the particulars of this brother’s sins, but assuming an accurate conveying of the issue (which, I have to note, is more or less assumed throughout this description of the process), they have a witness’s knowledge of the biblical principles that pertain, and how they ought to apply.
So, two or three witnesses have come, each bearing witness to the need for repentance. Perhaps this will suffice. But sin being sin, there is no guarantee of this, and so Jesus’ laying out of the disciplinary process includes a third step. “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” (Mt 18:17). What’s He saying here? First off, one could understand, perhaps, how one-on-one intervention might have been dismissed. It is not right that it has been dismissed, but it’s understandable. The one disciplined may well construe this as a secondary issue, a matter of opinion. But with confirmation by the views of multiple elders, that opinion ought reasonably to have been done away with.
What remains is rejection of God’s chosen leaders. I don’t say that as inflating the egos or serving the vanity of the elders, but as a description of the reality of the leadership process. God appoints leaders. Whatever mechanisms we may put in place by which to perceive and implement His choice, the underlying fact remains unchanged. He has set them here, and He has vested them with authority. If, dear sinner, you find cause to suppose they have exceeded their authority and therefore rendered their official capacity null and void, then that may well be a matter to bring before the church as well, but that is not the supposition here. Rather, you have every cause to consider most carefully their testimony and to undertake the corrective course they set before you. If you don’t, you are in plain point of fact rejecting Christ’s authority.
I say this advisedly. I am not advocating blind adherence to leadership, wherever they may lead. That way lies disaster! No, follow no man farther than he follows Christ remains the order of the day. But I do think, particularly in this matter of the exercise of leadership authority within the church, there must be a presumption of fitness unless there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that the leader no longer follows Christ as he ought. And observe! Jesus knows His own, and He knows that however willing the spirit, our flesh remains weak. We remain capable of failure, error, and egregious sin, even though redeemed. And so, even if the elders as a whole have taken it upon themselves to demand repentance and that repentance has not been forthcoming, there remains the fourth and more or less final step of bringing it before the entirety of the church body.
Let’s understand why this is needful. For one, such hardening against godly counsel and refusal to repent reveals a spiritual condition that, if left unchecked, threatens the health of the body at large. Sin likes to work in secret, to spread its poison in dark places where it can go undetected until it is too late. Sin, we will recognize from personal experience, is not satisfied to keep whatever gains it has made. It festers. It grows. It seeks out new territories and greater sins, and it will not rest until it has either been excised, it has metastasized and utterly destroyed its host organism.
Sin that will not answer to the leadership of the body will, left unchecked, spread itself to the body. It may be encouragement to like sin. It may be a whispering campaign (or even a shouting campaign) against the leadership of the body. It is an undermining of confidence in God and in those He has set to have charge of His affairs in this flock, and that is trouble indeed.
[11/28/20]
So, the call at the end is to deem this one a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. Some would take this as a call to shun the one thus disciplined, and to have no further dealings with him. But that, I think, reads the passage as coming from a Pharisee rather than from Jesus. To be sure, those hearing might well take that description as a call to reject utterly. After all, Gentiles were held in lowest esteem by the Jews generally, with the tax-gatherer, presumably a Jew in league with Rome for his own profit, held in esteem lower yet than the Gentiles. But then we need to recall that the disciples had among their number a tax-gatherer already in the person of that very Matthew who writes this gospel. We have also to remember that they had watched this Jesus in His dealings with Gentiles and tax-gatherers, and the other refuse of society. He had not rejected them. He had seen them as lost sheep, sick people in need of spiritual healing. He had seen the work of the enemy not in their person, but in their circumstance, and He had undertaken to make them aware that God had not rejected them utterly, whatever the Pharisees and Jewish society may have done.
I could observe as well that Jesus Himself, and His disciples after Him, would suffer this sort of rejection. Recall the man healed of his blindness, and he and his family fearing the threat of the ban should they confess Jesus as his healer. This was a serious threat in Israel. To be cut off from temple was to be cut off from society utterly. You might yet live in your house, but you would have no contact with your neighbor, no commerce with your local shops, no life, really; but mere existence. Perhaps you could find your way among the other outcasts, those Gentiles and tax-gatherers that Jesus mentions here.
What I arrive at is this: That one who was thought a member, to whom the corrective medicine of discipline was offered, but its offer refused, must be recognized now as not a member. Whatever profession of faith may have been made is shown false, and yes, it may very well be necessary to expel that one from the Church lest his poisonous insurrection spread. But he is not cast out as beyond hope of redemption, I don’t think. The Gentile and the tax-gatherer formed the mission field. These were the lost ones Jesus came to save, not those who thought themselves safe and secure in God’s choosing of His people Israel; not those who in great confidence continued to say, “the temple, the temple!” as though the presence of that edifice was their insurance against serious repercussions for sin.
Mind you, we have various passages which might lead us to question whether such a one can in fact be redeemed, but they must be balanced with others that make that hope pretty clear. On the one hand, we could consider the question from Hebrews 10:29. “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” That question would certainly seem to apply here, wouldn’t it? And the answer to this rather rhetorical question is clearly that he will deserve far more. The comparison, I should note, is to the punishments due under Mosaic Law, which were already death, so we’re talking pretty severe indeed.
Thus, under this heading of discipline, we find ourselves at one of the most challenging verses, in my opinion; one which has divided entire systems of belief within the Church. “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame” (Heb 6:4-6). Had you asked me in earliest years of my return to faith, I would have told you this was an open and shut case for the possibility that a believer, a true believer, could in fact fall away. I don’t know as I would have followed that thought to its logical conclusion based on this verse, and said that such a one is beyond all possibility of redemption, but the thought might very well have crossed my mind, and quite likely have put the fear of God into me – at least for a few moments.
No doubt, it is very much intended to put the fear of God into the reader. If these are the stakes, how seriously must I cling to faith and seek to live in a manner pleasing to my Lord? But I then have to recognize that if this is the case, then frankly, none have ever been saved. For all who have been redeemed have tasted and become partakers. All who have been redeemed have known the heavenly gift and the Holy Spirit. And all who have been redeemed have in fact sinned. John makes no bones about it. “If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1Jn 1:10). Someone might argue that this speaks only of such sins as transpired prior to salvation, in which case it’s hard to imagine who, having come to Christ, would pretend to such a claim. But observe what came just prior! “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleans us from all unrighteousness” (1Jn 1:9). John’s not writing to prospects, but to believers. And he writes in the present tense. Sins are a current issue, and shall be, I have no doubt whatsoever, so long as we persist in this present life. Perfection shall have to wait for our departure to the next.
So, what then? What are we doing in this severest of disciplinary actions? We eject such a one, but we eject in hope. We find an example of that in practice with Paul’s epistle to the church in Corinth. While there were numerous issues plaguing that body, and most of them entirely of their own making, one in particular sickened Paul. Here, in the church, was happy welcome being given to one whose sexual sins exceeded even those of the pagan culture around them. Hear the depths of his revulsion. “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. And you! You have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who has done this deed might be removed from your midst” (1Co 5:1-2).
This was utterly shocking to our apostle. I don’t say that the reality of sin amongst God’s redeemed was shocking to him. That was pretty much a given. No, what was utterly offensive to him was that the church was accepting it. The leadership was doing nothing to guard the flock, but rather, thought themselves oh, so enlightened to grant this reprobate warm welcome, coming in, we might suppose with his father’s wife on his arm as though this were perfectly normal. Look, if one thing is painfully clear from the whole of Scripture it is that God utterly loathes sexual immorality. Every other sin, Paul reminds us, farther on in this letter, is outside body, “but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1Co 6:18-19). Do you see it? You are defiling the temple. You are, were such a thing possible, coercing, forcing the Holy Spirit’s participation in your crime. No, you cannot possibly succeed in that, but the intent is there, whether you consciously bring it to mind or not. Do you know, I think that lies at the base of the whole thing. If I can just get the Spirit to stoop to my level, to share in my depravities, then I defang God, and can henceforth sin with impunity. As I say, it may not be consciously expressed, but I think perhaps I have tapped the subconscious motivation there.
Back to our disciplinary action. Paul is determined to do what the elders did not. He is after all the authority over their authority. “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh” (1Co 5:5a). Had he stopped there, we might have cause to accept the idea that fourth-stage disciplinary action is in fact final and irrevocable, that such a one, having trodden under foot the Christ, is now set beyond hope of reconciliation once for all. It may be, but it’s not assured. Paul continues, gives his reason for thus deciding. He does so, “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1Co 5:5b). The hope of the elder, in undertaking the necessary course of disciplinary action, is always redemption. Always. There can be no exception, for we are not so wise as to discern that one whose condemnation is already final, even though the life of the flesh persists for a season.
It is a serious matter, and those who are entrusted with the necessary authority must exercise it in all seriousness, and with a careful check on their motivation. Let me cycle back to that instruction Jesus gave them in Matthew 18. “Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Mt 18:18-20). I have to say, if ever there were a batch of verses severely abused by earnest believers, these must be high on the list!
Consider the context, much as many hate hearing that reminder. We are not on some random list of power promises to power believers. We are discussing matters of church discipline. We are discussing the issue of sin, either repented of or unrepented. We are still on the topic that led to stage-four discipline: “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.” The message, particularly in that matter of binding and loosing, is not to give you the power to go willy-nilly, making whatever arrogant claims you like, and God is now bound by your decisions. Any God that would be so capricious in handing out power over Himself is no god. I’m not sure we could even qualify him as a demon at that point, for surely even they are smarter than all that, for all their wickedness.
No, Jesus’ point here is first, to make clear the seriousness of the endeavor, and second, to reinforce the authority of those He has set over His flock. Here’s the message to these leaders: Your decision will be backed by the power of heaven. If you say this one is out, he is out. If you say he is forgiven, he is forgiven. Now, I have to say that even here, God’s veto power applies. If the elder has not, in fact, judged rightly, I don’t for a moment suppose that God is bound by that judgment and incapable of righting the wrong that has been done. By no means! God is sovereign, and that simple fact precludes all thought of Him being bound by the whims of puny man. If puny man doesn’t get that, then I have to suppose he is probably not godly man.
But those other messages continue the court scene. These are not promises that all we have to do is manage to agree on the course of our prayer, and God simply has to comply with our wishes. Not a chance! As has been observed by wiser men than I, if that were the case, cancer would have long since ceased to be an issue, Covid would never have arisen, for the common cold, of which it is a derivative, would likewise have been eradicated somewhere back round, say, 68 AD at the latest. Wars would not have transpired, for I’m sure there have been two or three who prayed together that wars might cease. All would be garden paths and sunshine, except rain where needful, but preferably at night, and snows would fall atop the mountains without troubling our highways. Honestly, one only has to consider for the barest moment to see that this is not some promise of having our way, so long as we can find a partner. It’s a court scene.
Remember the course of discipline. Bring others, that by the testimony of two or three witnesses, the facts may be settled. This is the same story. It is the earthly court of the elders rendering decision, and Jesus saying that where those elders are exercising their authority in keeping with His delegation of that authority, He will assuredly back their decisions. But, as all authority is from Him, if they have exceeded or abused their authority, then their authority is forfeit, and their decision cannot be thought binding upon Christ, the authorizing agency. The message here is to elder and congregant alike. “Where two or three are gathered together in My name – on My authority and in the exercise thereof, there I am in their midst.” My representatives, says our Lord, speak with My authority. What they say is what I say. What they render as decision is My decision. This is not Jesus acceding to their more limited perspective. This is Jesus informing those at court that He has rendered the judgment they speak. His perspective is applied, and His perspective has no limits.
And still, we come back to that beautiful example of discipline in Paul’s words. Discipline is ever undertaken in hope that restoration may come about. We do not punish simply to eliminate the difficult parishioner from our midst to be forgotten. We punish reluctantly, as any parent is reluctant to impose the necessary punishment on their child. But we punish in hope. As the parent hopes the lesson will be learned and a happier future of loving obedience follow, so the elder punishes in hopes that the lesson will be learned, sin rejected, repentance encouraged, and loving obedience to Christ – not to the elder, to Christ – may follow.
I do not believe we are in position, ever, to make final judgments as to the soul of any man. The power of excommunication, for that’s what this is, must be understood as a temporary matter. It may be rendered permanent by the one thus excommunicated, but the doors of the Church are ever open to the sinner who would come and find his sins forgiven. But the Church is never called to be a gullible dupe, presuming innocence and repentance without cause. No. the Church sits as shepherd over her sheep, watchful lest any thief or ravenous wolf might make their way in amongst her charges and destroy that which is precious to the Lord, our Good Chief Shepherd.
