Church Discipline in Wall Street Journal

This morning, I was given a copy of a recent article in the Wall Street Journal that discussed the issue of church discipline. Apparently, according to the article, there has been something of a revival of the practice of exercising church discipline in recent years, especially among more evangelical churches.

The problem that I have with the article is not really a problem with the author of the article but a problem with the churches cited and the extreme measures they appear to be taking under the rubric of "church discipline."

For example, the article cited a 6,000-member church in Nashville, TN, that is threatening to expel 74 members from its membership for "gossiping and causing disharmony unless they repent." Then the article went on to explain that these 74 members were simply looking to gain access to the church's financial records and had been denied such access by the leadership of the church.

The article also cited a church in Virginia that ousted a 43 year old working mother and her children for "gossiping about her pastor's plans to buy a bigger house."

Another instance involved a church in Michigan, which removed a 71-year old woman from its membership for "taking action against the church and your preacher," and then proceeded to have her arrested on at least two occasions when she continued to attend after being removed. According to the article, all this woman did (accompanied by several others) was to demand that her pastor run the church in accord with the church's constitution.

Well...these stories raise several issues that I'd like to talk about here:

1. Each of the situations discussed in the article appear to be examples of church leaders acting FAR TOO EXTREMELY! I say this for several reasons. First, in at least two of the three situations I cited, the members were WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS in what they were asking for. NEVER should ANYONE be disciplined for acting within their rights. The only possible exception would be the example of the woman who gossiped about her pastor wanting to buy a bigger house. And this raises the second reason, and that is, each of the situations went to the EXTREME in dealing with minor sins. Excommunication should be reserved for only the most serious of grievances. And while it is true that the article does not tell us all the sordid details, it is also true that gossip about a pastor's house is NEVER grounds for excommunication or removal from church membership. PERIOD. If the pastor or the leadership was offended at what she said, they should have discussed it with her one-on-one. And then, following the guidelines of Matthew 18, taken it from there. Excommunication is never to be exercised quickly or as a first-line consequence. In the Presbyterian church, for example, there are several steps along the way before one is even able to suggest the word "excommunication," not least of which is a fair trial before a plurality of the leadership.

2. These situations smack of pastor-abuse! Sadly, the church is frequently torn apart not by the sins of the membership but by the sins of the leadership. These situations have the look and smell of unvarnished PRIDE (and you know what they say, if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck...). If the leaders would have humbled themselves in each of the above instances, there would probably have been no further need for church discipline!

3. Now let me really speak my mind! Each of these instances occurred in independent churches (with baptistic or congregational church governments), which means that there was no recourse for the church members to appeal the decisions of the church leadership. One of the beautiful things about the Presbyterian form of church government, besides being Biblical (!), is that it provides a security and a means of protection for the members of the local church. This can be seen in at least two ways. First, the Presbyterian church is governed by a PLURALITY of elders. The pastor is not THE decision-maker but is only ONE of many decision-makers. This prevents the pastor from harming the church or its members by his own personal agenda or feelings. Second, the Presbyterian church is accountable to superior "courts of appeal," so that each individual member cannot be held prisoner by the tyranny of any one local church. In each of these cases cited above, the church member would have been able to appeal the local church's decision to the regional "church," called the Presbytery (which is made up of all the elders of the churches in a particular geographical region) and, after that, to the national "church," called the General Assembly.

I am all for a revival of the practice of church discipline. But we need to be careful not to use church discipline as a weapon to ensure that we get our own way or to ensure that those who oppose us are eliminated. We are to love those who speak against us and pray for those who persecute us, even in the church. Sometimes, we do have to initiate church discipline. But it should always be with an eye to reclaiming the brother or sister, never to alienating them completely and arresting them for sitting under the preaching of the Word!

Comments?