The role of the law in church discipline
What role does the law play in the practice of church discipline? Leaving the specific issue of church discipline aside, in that scripture is clear that there is a process in which we cast professing Christians out of our midst if they continue in sin without repentance, I want to specifically focus on what sins are ‘worthy’ of church discipline.
To briefly address the different positions here:
A) Some believe that Christians are under no law whatsoever (under, as in, there is no obligation whatsoever for us to obey anything in scripture). With that position, I’m not sure how they would practice church discipline. This would be the ‘no lordship’, ‘free grace’ position.
B) Some believe that the 'law' for new testament believers is only a sin as defined by the new testament, and that nothing outside of the new testament can be defined as a 'law' and thus a 'sin'. This would be New Covenant Theology, I believe, and consistent Dispensationalism.
C) Some believe that both the old and new testaments teach principles for all believers of all time, no matter if they lived in the old or new testament period.
One other clarification: for there even to be such a thing as ‘sin’ and ‘discipline’, -discipline from either the church or divine chastening from the Lord, there must be a clear definition of the concept of ‘sin’. That much should be plain.
Now, to ask some questions here:
1) Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who consistently breaks the Sabbath?
2) Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who consistently takes bribes?
3) Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who visits palm-readers and sorcerers?
4) Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who bows down to pray to an image of Jesus, claiming, as the Catholics and Greek Orthodoxs, that these ‘images’, ‘idols’, or ‘icons’ are not in themselves being worshiped, but that they are simply being used as a reference point to direct their minds to God?
5) Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who claims to have a word of prophecy, even proclaiming ‘thus says the Lord’, when their ‘prophecy’ is full of inaccurate predictions of the future and/or wrong doctrine?
6) Is it biblical to practice church discipline on a man who continually dresses up like a woman in public? That is, in makeup, a dress, maybe even a bra, kind of like a drag queen?
7) Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who covers themselves in tattoos, so that even while they are claiming to follow Christ, they continue to cover themselves from head to toe?
Notice one thing: all of these issues above are completely absent from the New Testament, as far as I know. At least they are absent in specificity. However, they are all over the Old Testament. For example, the sin of taking bribes is all over the Old Testament, but found nowhere in the new (that I have seen). As is the issue of idols, of sorcerers, etc. So, what shall we do with these?
Now, I am NOT saying that church discipline is proper in every one of the points above, but I only give these so as to stir up your minds. We must have firm, clear, objective views on sin if we are to be honoring to our Lord.
What is the law of God? Is it the New Testament only? Is the New Testament and the 10 commandments? Is it only in some kind of ‘law of Christ’? How should we properly go about defining what sin is?
As for my position, and this can get fleshed out in future posts or the comments, I stand with David in Psalm 119:160,
The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
13 Exhortations:
Nathan, my two cents:
I'm closest to your Position 3. The way I would state the principle is that once the Lawgiver delivers a command, it remains in force until it becomes clear by further revelation (from the same Lawgiver) that the particular command is set aside.
As for your list of sins and church discipline, I am a little surprised to see you list the Sabbath as a thing that is "completely absent" from the New Testament. In fact, I see the Sabbath discussed frequently and extensively. (And am currently of the opinion that this discussion positively sets aside the Jewish "day of rest" as in my above definition.)
I would answer "yes" on all the rest. I do admit to having some question about the last one, as it seems to me that the Old Covenant law against tatoos may have been specifically related to ancestor worship. I would have difficulty disciplining, therefore, a woman who, for instance, gets eye-liner tatooed on. (It may be a vain thing, but not every sin is a crime.) I also wonder if this purely outward commandment doesn't fall into the same category as the tassels on the garments. That is, outward signs meant to create a visible separation between Jews and Gentiles. So, I'd be willing to be convinced either way on that one. But, for the purpose of your post, I'd need to be convinced about the "original intent" of the commandment itself: I still see that as authoritative.
Forgive me, Gordan. I too believe that the NT mentions the Sabbath. I really just meant to 'assume the position' of so many who believe that it is not mentioned as a command in the New Covenant.
You said: once the Lawgiver delivers a command, it remains in force until it becomes clear by further revelation (from the same Lawgiver) that the particular command is set aside.
Excellent summary, and my position exactly.
Personally, I also would have a tough time being convinced that tatooing is worthy of discipline. I just put it up there to stir up some thinking. I'm not trying to put down all those who get 'Jesus and USA' on their biceps (OK, maybe I am). :)
As I see it, any sin is worthy of church discipline, if it is not repented of.
As far as the sins you mentioned, here's my thoughts:
1. Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who consistently breaks the Sabbath?
Absolutely. Violation of the 9th commandment.
2. Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who consistently takes bribes?
Absolutely. A violation of the 10th commandmentment, and possibly the 6th.
3. Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who visits palm-readers and sorcerers?
Absolutely. A violation of the 1st commandment.
4. Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who bows down to pray to an image of Jesus?
Absolutely. A violation of the 2nd commandment.
5. Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who claims to have a word of prophecy...?
Absolutely. Violation of the 8th commandment.
6. Is it biblical to practice church discipline on a man who continually dresses up like a woman in public?
Absolutely. Violation of the 10th commandment. (Not being content with our God-given identity is coveteousness).
7. Is it biblical to practice church discipline on someone who covers themselves in tattoos?
Absolutely, if it were exclusively associated with idolatry as it was then. Violation of the 1st commandment.
Hi Nathan,
In your description of the three different positions, it seems (and I'm attempting to read between the lines here) that your understanding of New Covenant Theology has been strongly influenced by the people at In-Depth Studies (www.ids.org). For better or for worse, most people who learn about NCT do so through their website. This is not meant to be a dig at them, just a reminder to you that NCT is by no means a monolithic movement, and there are many who would hold to a form of NCT, but would not take the position on "law" that the IDS folks do.
I would encourage you to check out the booklet by Jon Zens called "This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him" [http://tinyurl.com/38bmtv] for a different, and (I feel) better elucidation of an NCT position on "law". Also, you may wish to check out a very short article written by a friend of mine related to this topic. It can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/j3cqf. And if you have a little more time, this article here [http://tinyurl.com/2j7psn] is one of the best I've ever read on the issue of Biblical law.
Also, I don't know of anyone who would disagree with your statement of the third position, even those who hold to an NCT position of some sort. I think even the folks at IDS (though I could be wrong here) would say that "the old testament teaches principles for all believers of all time." That being the case, it seems like your description of the three positions seems to pose some false dichotomies that those holding to the positions you describe (esp. NCT) would not consent to. Please don't take this the wrong way, as it's meant to be some friendly criticism, and nothing more.
I hope you will at least take the time to read the shorter article I linked to, if not the longer one as well. And the booklet by Zens would be well worth reading if you have the time.
Thank you for your time,
gh
gholthaus@gmail.com
Garrett,
Thanks for your comment.
I have read some IDS stuff, I admit. However, I know that they are not representative of the whole, and that they hold some radical views. I would argue, however, that they are simply following the NCT position to its logical conclusion. It's like Arminians: most do not hold to salvation by works, but the position itself logically leads to that conclusion.
Anyway, I recognize the diversity within NCT. I know 4 NCT'ers personally, and they don't seem to agree on anything. All 4 have their own little way of arguing their point. It is very frustrating, but expected from a movement that holds such a short life-span in the history of the church.
I am familiar with Zens book and the 'hear Him' argument, though I have not read it in full.
Finally, you said a few things I'd like to comment on:
You said: I don't know of anyone who would disagree with your statement of the third position, even those who hold to an NCT position of some sort. I think even the folks at IDS (though I could be wrong here) would say that "the old testament teaches principles for all believers of all time.
That's why I phrased the post on church discipline. We're not talking about principles here, we're talking about right from wrong, sin verses righteousness, holiness verses fleshliness. Many agree that the OT provides 'principles', but I am arguing that is provides sin verse obedience as well. As justified in Christ, we are not under a law in a binding manner, but only in a instructive manner. A 'law' must be defined as anything that God deems as sin and needs to be repented of if committed. If a sin is defined in the old testament, and in the OT alone, and if this is really a 'sin', then church discipline is necessary and the law of God extends beyond the bounds of Matt - Rev.
Nathan,
Thank you for replying. I can see what you are trying to say in your last paragraph, and I think you are beginning to ask the right questions. The problem, though, is that such a question is a lot more involved than what it first appears to be. Attempting to discern what is and is not a binding law anymore is a hermeneutical issue of broad proportions. We both know that it is more than simply a matter of going back to the OT and seeing what God did and did not call a sin under the old covenant. If that were the case, you would have to practice church discipline on someone for wearing a garment of mixed materials. Just speaking for me personally, it has been the NCT position (not that represented by IDS, but in the articles I sent you the links to) that has done the best job in providing a framework through which to understand the biblical concept of "law", and the related issue of the continuity/discontinuity between the covenants.
And I can understand your frustration with the NCT camp, in that no one in the camp seems to agree on anything. The quip about your four friends reminds me of what happened when I tried to get a group of covenant theologians to tell me what constituted sabbath breaking under the new covenant :P
In all seriousness though, I think you would be benefited by reading as much as you can of the articles I referenced. If nothing else, they will give you a better feel for what I would consider to be the best representatives of the NCT position. And though the title of Zens' book may suggest otherwise, he deals with far more in there than just the sole argument of the transfiguration account. He interacts with many Reformed writers of the past and present, as well as presenting a positive argument for his position on Biblical law through an exegesis of the relevant Scriptures.
Thanks for the interaction,
gh
Nathan:
I see these as local church issues. I think that's a part of the problem within the SBC right now. A denomination can't agree on what constitutes 'sin'. A local church probably can.
One of your post-ers said he didn't think anyone would have a problem with your #3. I disagree, and think many within the SBC have a problem with #3. They charge others with legalism, while they're more guilty of it themselves. Their philosophy seems to be if Scripture does not give an explicit prohibition, we are free (in this case to drink in moderation).
Local churches can come to an agreement that won't effect fellowship, or where there will be consensus over issues meriting church discipline; denominations can't easily arrive at that point.
Rod,
Your comment strikes me as pragmatically true, and theologically post-modern. I mean no insult, but I'm saying this:
You're probably right about the fact that a local church could probably come to full agreement about these things more quickly. But I believe Nathan is asking what the Biblical "right answer" really is. And your comment seems to imply that there may not be one, or that if there is one, it's less important than having a church be unified.
I may be wrong in seeing that in your comment. A little clarification might be nice.
Gordon:
Thanks for the help...I abhor post-modernism (and am probably more than I care to admit).
Yes, I was answering pragmatically, though not intentionally. And I was definitely answering through the lens/perspective of being Southern Baptist.
I believe God has but one truth. His Word IS the final authority. However, in Nathan's #3 category where the Bible is not explicit, I'm not sure Christians will agree on God's perspective, or on applying the principles of God's Word.
That could have devastating consequences on the local church. Denominations may be able to survive it (lack of unity) or at least weather the resulting schism, but the local church would be greatly harmed.
Rod said,
"I'm not sure Christians will agree on God's perspective, or on applying the principles of God's Word."
I'll see that and raise you: I gaurantee that they won't :(
I just hate to see us head down that path, so that if the truth of God is controversial, let's leave that to local church autonomy. We ought to appeal to that local control when God has not clearly spoken on a thing, but surely not when he has, right? I don't think any of the SBC founders imagined granting local autonomy so that a church could decide whether to obey the scripture or not?
Now, it may be that this particular issue is not real clear, in the sense that we still need to have the theological discussion and hash this out. That I'd grant you.
Greetings, Nate. I hope you are well.
Suppose a church had an issue with one of its members and was debating whether to bring up the topic to the person. If necessary, they would seek to expel the person if they seemed to be unwilling to change.
What is a church to do if the person claims that they were only following what they believed was the call of God upon their life, even if it seems absurd to other church members?
I guess I've been often accused of trying to impose my own view of what is "good" on God and that I should know that whatever God wills is, by its nature, good because He is God, no matter how incomprehensible it may seem to us.
Is the church in question not putting God in a box, so to speak, by demanding that He command certain things from His followers? He did, after all, ask Abraham to kill His only son. While this is admittedly a more extreme example, I'm sure there are other Scriptural instances where He did ask things that run contrary to everything we understand as being "moral" and "good".
I see no reason why these sort of demands should have ended with the final book of Scripture, as if He has become more "reasonable" all of a sudden.
I'm not trying to be irreverent here, but it seems that we all have certain expectations of Him, as seen by this topic.
- James
oops ... should have put "his only son" (Abraham)
- James
Hi James,
Good thoughts. Church Discipline is never, ever an easy issue. However, I believe that church discipline should only be practiced within the bounds of scripture. Only specific and clear sins as laid out in scripture should be a matter of discipline -and only if the sin is continued in an unrepentant manner. Likewise, the elders of the church must make this ultimate decision of whether it is a sin or not, and their authority in the matter only goes as far as scripture as well.
Post a Comment