“Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.” ― Henry David Thoreau, Journal #14 link
I am going to do two posts today since they involve separate subjects. I am heading to Baltimore midweek and Deb will handle the two posts for Wednesday and Friday. There could be some breaking news on The Village Church situation. If so, I will post something to keep TWW readers up to date.
"First Things" posted THE DEMOCRATIC FOUNDATIONS OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE by Collin Garbarino. I want to thank an anonymous reader who alerted me to this. The intent of this posting was to negate a post Shepherds, shamers, and shunners: The rise of church discipline in America (Part 1) written by Jonathan Merritt.
I am writing this to encourage all of you that leave cogent comments at blogs that do not get approved for various reasons.
Wasn't this post about the history of church discipline?
This post was about TVC's church discipline as shown by the opening statement:
The Village Church, a Southern Baptist mega-church in the Dallas area, recently disciplined a woman who had her marriage annulled when she found out that her husband had been looking at child porn. Why would the church do that? Isn’t she the wronged party?
He digs at Merritt's critique of Jonathan Leeman.
"Biblical discipline"
Garbarino quotes Merritt.
Jonathan Leeman is author of “Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus” and editorial director of 9 Marks, a Washington D.C.-based ministry that believes rigorous church discipline is one of the nine central components that comprise a “biblical church.”
Garbarino then says:
Nice use of scare quotes around “biblical church,” by the way
Garbarino does not seem to understand that many Christians use the word "biblical" to let everyone know that when anyone critiques them, the critics are critiquing the Bible. It's kind of like us when we write "gospel.™" It seems like a certain segment of leaders have so overused the word to claim that what they are doing "is the gospel" that the essential meaning is being lost. And that, to me, is scary…
What concerns me is that Garbarino and Leeman could use the word "biblical" to shield themselves from any critique of the implementation of discipline as is so evident in the discipline of Karen Hinckley (formerly Root.)
He critiques Merritt for not quoting Matthew 18
This verse has been used to justify all sorts of abuse in the name of Jesus.
Why didn’t Merritt cite these verses? I can only assume that they don’t fit the narrative that he’s trying to craft. These few verses out of Matthew go a long way toward explaining what churches like The Village Church are attempting to do. I say “attempting” because sometimes churches do a poor job—which is Merritt’s next point.
Matthew 18 has been quoted to death by all sorts of churches screwing up all kinds of church discipline. Having to mention Matthew 18 is like having to remind everyone that CBMW is complementarian. Good night!
Garbarino critiques Merritt for mentioning the Salem Witch trials as an example of the church "disciplining" people.
He claims that proponents of church discipline often end up abusing and shaming people in the congregation. He mentions Mark Driscoll’s recent woes and then jumps to the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition—a most unhelpful historical summary of the rise of church discipline in America.
More on this in a minute.
Pastors do not have authority to discipline in the SBC
Garbarino denies that pastor in SBC any authority and the authority rests with the congregation.
in the traditional Baptist understanding of discipline, the leaders don’t have that much authority. If one wants to understand the 9Marks model of church discipline, then one needs to understand the Baptist traditions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Authority rested with the congregation, and the congregation operated in a democratic fashion.
Frankly, if the numbers of posts that we have written on the abuse of church members by church leaders is any indication, the authority rests in the hands of the celebrity pastors.
He moves to separate the Baptists from those baptizing infants s if that makes a difference in abuse.
These Baptist features make their form of church discipline different in character from other Christian groups. Those groups who baptize infants think about membership in a decidedly different manner. Those groups who invest authority into some form of hierarchy will wield authority in a very different manner.
Then he states that being a Baptist means you could not join a church or leave voluntarily.
Traditionally there were only two ways out of a Baptist church—death or the congregation votes you out. This discharge could be either honorable or dishonorable. One’s membership in a Baptist church isn’t voluntary.
However, since The Village Church and 9 Marks are Baptists, this point is moot.They have a rigid authority structure in which the plurality of elders who always agree with the pastor is maintained by current elders making sure the next elders get on board. Their church rotates around their lead pastors, Mark Dever and Matt Chandle,r and to pretend they do not is a bit disingenuous. And as was seen in TVC, those elders were part of the abuse structure that wounded Karen and, in our opinion, did not evaluate Jordan Root in an effective manner. There is a reason we call 9 Marks the Hotel California of the Evangelical Set.
The Village Church was only trying to follow Jesus to "restore" Karen.
The pastors of The Village Church publicly apologized for mishandling their latest instance of church discipline. They were dealing with a sensitive and difficult situation, and though their actions might have made things more difficult, they ultimately hoped for restoration. Merritt and many other voices want to know why they did what they did. It’s not a mystery really. They were trying to follow Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 18 as interpreted by their Baptist forebears.
The question is "Restore her to what?" Being married to a man who is sexually attracted to little kids and is a pathological liar?
My response:
It was obvious to me that Garbarino does not fully understand just how seriously The Village Church and Matt Chandler screwed up in this situation. The plurality of elders, the underling pastors, the parroting "covenant " members and the absence of Chandler show that the system is broken. They did not follow Jesus in their actions. They followed their authority based rules structure that meant more to them then a dear woman who was deeply hurting. They misused the over-quoted Matthew 18 verses to discipline the wrong person. Yes, church discipline is often abused and I agree with Merritt.
There were no comments on this post at First Things. Thinking they might be interested in hearing from someone who actually knows what happened from the point of view of the victim, I wrote the following response. It was first held for moderation, then it was never posted. My question: What's First Things afraid of? Are we protecting church discipline over assessing how badly we screw up? In my opinion, Jonathan Merritt hit the nail on the head.
My never approved comment.
Although I believe in the right for churches to pursue discipline, I do not believe in the right of churches to abuse their church members which is precisely what happened in this situation. This went far beyond the walls of the church.
Let's review what happened. First, Jordan Root had admitted to acts of molestation as a youth to his former wife. Secondly he was viewing images of children being abused, for that is what child pornography really is, child abuse. Those children ranged in age from infant (!) to prepubescent. Can you imagine viewing pictures of little toddlers crying for their mommies as they are being abused? This is not just a porn addiction. It is an act founded in violence which perpetuates the abuse and trafficking of children for personal sexual gratification.
This man had consistently lied to his wife since before his marriage and there is absolutely no reason to believe he is telling the full truth now. To make matters worse, the church decided that after a couple of weeks Jordan Root was "walking in repentance" which is shockingly naive. Meanwhile, the wife was put under church discipline for pursuing an annulment which was readily granted by the Texas courts. Except for some hyper authoritarian types, there are few who see the purpose in such an abusive action against Karen. She, by far, seems to be the most sensible one in this entire story.
You claim the church wanted "restoration." Yes, those are the scare quotes because such restoration would involve staying married to an individual who has a lifelong addiction to abusive images along with an admission to childhood molestation. You can look at the statistics. The chances of him continuing to reoffend are extremely high. The church wanted her to stay married to a man who participates in the abuse of children. Seriously?
I know her story quite well because she reached out to Amy Smith, SNAP Dallas, and me, when her church continued to pursue her, even after she resigned from the church in February. This was prior to being disciplined, I might add. The discipline was retroactive. It is very sad that she had to reach out to virtual strangers for support since her church was far more interested in "disciplining" her.
There is more to come on this story. The church handled things very badly, hurting a lovely woman who sought to dedicate her life to mission work. The church has been credibly accused of other examples of "biblical discipline" (scare quotes intended.) There is hope that they will now walk back this entire process and support Karen's choice to annul her marriage and that they will look more closely at Jordan Root's "walk of repentance."
Finally, I grew up in Salem, Massachusetts and have studied the history of the witch trials in depth. One cannot easily separate state sponsored witch hysteria from the church's beliefs and participation.They were both in it up to their eyeballs. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers saw fit to never sponsor a state church. Salem is a good example of how messy that got.
If The Village Church's response to the Roots is your example of healthy church discipline, then it is my prediction that people will flee the church in droves if such discipline becomes the norm
First?
first?
Its Marsha! Who will be our first Triple Crown winner?
That was an outstanding comment! They don’t want to hear the truth.
I see that there are no comments following the article. I don’t believe you wrote the only response, Dee! He must not like what anyone had to say.
All I can say is that the men who won’t print “all” reasonable comments “are cowards.”
BTW this is the man who wrote the article –
“Collin Garbarino is assistant professor of history at Houston Baptist University.”
Has he even studied the Puritan history of the Northeast?
Top 3 reasons your comment didn’t go through:
A) You’re a woman
B) You stated a reasonable response to his points
C) You’re a woman
Not that surprising, a lot of religious blogs aren’t fans of dissenting comments. I’m usually shocked if they allow comments at all.
They are very concerned their “pet” doctrine is getting to bad of a rap out there. And yes, putting “biblical” in scare quotes means they win. (In their world)
I think trotting out Matthew 18 for church discipline (as they really view it) is a HUGE stretch. I can remember listening to Jay Adams teach on this many years ago and guess what he did? He ADDED a step to Matthew 18. Yep. He added in “take it to the elders” of the church before you take it to the entire church.
See how that works? And that is what they really mean–bring it to the elders. Adams was totally convinced that was “biblical”.
Don’t even get me started on the way they mangle church history. Drives me nuts.
Bridget wrote:
I doubt it….after helping hiring history teachers for the last 30 years, you’d be amazed at what they do not know….even in their ” so called” expertise….
@ Tim:
And I am female! 🙂
Do you really have to ask that question? First Things, while deeper than many evangelical rags, is essentially fundamentalist – dissent is not allowed. Collin Garbarino’s article is actually pretty typical – his title is a lie in the sense that “church discipline” as practiced by this crowd is not only not democratic, it is intentionally and celebratorilly not democratic (see IX Marks for more on this…). Garbarino’s article is, like most First Things articles, propaganda. Yeah. I actually took college and graduate courses on rhetoric, marketing, and propaganda, so I can smell it a mile away. Disappointing, perhaps, but hardly surprising.
Excellent comment. Glad you at least posted it here!
Lydia wrote:
You mean the same church history as the Mormons & Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Tim wrote:
😀
” in the traditional Baptist understanding of discipline, the leaders don’t have that much authority.”
Well, then they’re definitely not following a “traditional Baptist understanding of discipline”. (Scare Quotes intended.)
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
You are so right re. First Things!
I think I’ve said something similar in a previous thread, but anyone who uses Matthew 18 as an excuse for ‘church discipline’ is a fraud. Here’s Matthew 18:15-17:
‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.
Here’s why it has no relevance to church discipline:
1) This passage deals ONLY with disputes between individual members, not between an individual and the church leadership over doctrine or administration of the church. – it deals only with offenses committed by one member against another member.
2) The 2-3 witnesses are only relevant to a second discussion between the aggrieved member and the perpetrator – not as witnesses to the initial sin.
3) The ‘church’ under Matthew 18 only acts as a mediator or arbitrator between the two individuals, not as an aggrieved party or enforcer of any decision.
4) The ‘church’ in this case has to mean the whole membership, not the leadership of the church. The text doesn’t speak at all about any church leadership because there was no such thing in Jesus’ day.
5) if the perpetrator chooses not to listen to the church, then the ONLY consequence is that the aggrieved party is to treat the perpetrator as a “Gentile or tax collector”. So the result is simply how the aggrieved party is to behave relative to the perpetrator in these cases. The ‘church’, whatever it might be, has no role at all in enforcing any decision it reaches or any other form of discipline.
The philosophy of Jesus in this passage is the same as Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, that is, to get individual Christians to settle their differences amicably with the help of the church instead of suing one another. This is the Biblical view and completely contrary to the BS claimed by self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners masquerading as God-appointed gospelly mini-popes.
dee wrote:
And if there’s anything they decry more than a #whippersnapper, it’s a #femalewimmin!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
So true. I check out First Things frequently, and it really is quite fundagelical much of the time. And yes, most First Things articles are propaganda/polemic.
From the First Things article:
May I humbly suggest that if the ELDERS at The Village were unprepared to deal with something like pedophilia, then they are unprepared and therefore unqualified to be ELDERS, a position which requires maturity and wisdom. These ELDERS did not “slip into lording over their congregatins.” They intentionally put a victim into an ungodly and unBiblical “church discipline” process which was nothing more than coercion and blackmail by a group of immature men who had their pride injured by a woman who would not bow to their demand that she stay in a marriage with a pedophile. Coercion and blackmail are ugly words, but that’s what it was, and Collin should know that or he should not have a position at a Baptist University if he really thinks this was a “slip.” It was intentional right up to the time where it became so widely known and ridiculed that it could not be sustained.
More from Collin:
They apologized for “mishandling” what they never should have touched in the first place. And they have *not* apologized for their sin against Karen. Sin by the ELDERS against one of God’s precious daughters for whom these men demonstrated contempt. Collin’s excuse for their sin is that they were dealing with a “sensitive and difficult situation.” Perhaps it seems like a difficult situation to Collin. To most adults, it is not a matter for serious questioning. Only an idealogue would find this a “difficult situation.”
Collin goes on with his explanation for what is unexplainable by saying “their actions might have made things more difficult.” For whom, Collin? For Karen? I doubt you care about her. For Chandler? Definitely it made things complicated for him since it exposed what they care most about. But Collin says to never mind because they meant well and “ultimately hoped for restoration.” What in the world? Who needs to be restored to whom, and how did anything the ELDERS did help restoration of anything. ISTM that their actions which they considered over several months pretty much destroyed any possibility of restoring much of anything.
If this article is an example of the kind of reasoning that students at Houston Baptist are being taught, then Houston Baptist is failing its students.
@ Gram3:
Seems as if “restoration” would involve supporting the injured party (Karen) — seeing that her needs were met, encouraging the congregation to pray for her, pray with her (if she wanted), issue invitations to her (single women are often neglected in churches — families need to be reminded to extend hospitality to them, too, not just other couples or families).
And yes, they could also support Jordan in his walk in repentance… keeping him separated from Karen and from families with children, encouraging him to confess all, to come clean, to deal with the authorities, praying with him through the consequences of trial and prison. Offering to have mature men, strong in their faith and walk, visit with him, study the scriptures with him perhaps, work to make sure he gets professional counseling in prison, hold him accountable, let him know they love him in the Lord but that actions have consequences.
That sort of thing.
I dunno, that’s kind of my thoughts on what “restoration” might look like in this circumstance. But it doesn’t sound like what TVC was talking about.
@ refugee:
(and p.s. I’m not implying that the church should insist they stay married, but that this is what would happen after the annulment, if they wanted to be a help and support to both parties. And if they were unable to keep the two separate, then support Karen in finding a different body where she could worship, whether she wants their help, or just their blessing in going. They could even throw her a farewell party, Jordan not invited, of course. But now I’m getting silly.)
This is the point. They write stupid articles to the indoctrinated then refuse to engage articulate pushback. It’s all business at best and cult at worst. There’s no room for God in their system anymore. Any system that can’t handle disagreement is weak and doesn’t reflect God who can handle disagreement. Tired of it.
Marsha wrote:
What is so sick is TVC didn’t just try to coerce Karen to remain in a fake marriage but they also blackmailed SIM effectively holding its missionaries supported by TVC hostage unless SIM did as TVC told them. No one from the leadership crowd is speaking to that disgusting sin and it makes me sick.
@ Gram3:
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
This is one of their “definition” tricks. 9 Marks claims they are “congregational” but they are “congregational” in the Puritan sense. Not the 20th century SBC sense.
@ JeffT:
They don’t seem to spend any time on the first part of that chapter and how it fits with their church discipline view.
Melody wrote:
No one from the Gospel Glitterati will touch the real issues that this case revealed because this case is so clear that even the pagans know what the ELDERS did was wrong. They will not touch the real issues because they love themselves and their idols and their System more than they love the One whose name they claim.
The best thing to do would be for a Piper or a Grudem or a Mohler or a Dever or even Matt Chandler himself to just come out and say they were dead wrong about their System and that it is merely the doctrines of men and not God. That would be “owning it 110%” as our drive-by commenter, Jack, said. Non-believers can plainly see this, but for those who are spellbound by their idolatry, this fiasco is just a “slip” and a “mishandling.” And with this article at First Things, Collin let the mask “slip” yet again. When you start sounding just like a political PR flak, it is time to look in the mirror.
Melody wrote:
Yes, that’s exactly what I had in mind. What the ELDERS did was not very gospel-centered, ISTM, because they were more than ready to hinder the work of those missionaries to get their own petulant way.
Gram3 wrote:
This cover-up-abuse crowd loves to blackmail:
The church is still reeling from the recent conviction of Brandon Milburn, a former youth minister at the church who in March was sentenced to 25 years in prison for sexually abusing two young boys.
Many members accuse [Steve] Wingfield [the lead pastor] of mishandling the sexual abuse crisis at the church. They claim the pastor failed to report Milburn even after members brought the youth minister’s questionable behavior to his attention, that he has done little to reach out to victims or seek out other potential victims, and that church leadership has done a poor job of communicating with members.
. . . .
A further indication of just how complicated (and ugly) the situation at First Christian Church has become came in May when Doug Lay, a critic of the pastor, resigned from his position as professor of English at St. Louis Christian College. The resignation came after Paul Wingfield, Steve Wingfield’s brother, a pastor at White Flag Christian Church, near Arnold, pulled funding from the college.
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/article_83cc3d84-2772-5b0d-961a-a0a5db510b97.html#.VXVqK6miU2M.twitter
While I am not a professor at a Baptist university like Mr. Garbarino, I did take a Baptist polity course at Yale Divinity School for my M.Div. What he describes as Baptist polity structure as applied to membership is very foreign to what was taught to me. It is more akin to Congregationalist polity, which I would remind Mr. Garbarino was what led to the founding of the Baptist denomination in the United States with Roger Williams detracting from the Congregationalist/Puritan control. If any denomination supported voluntary association, it was the Baptists. The high premium and priority place on the Priesthood of All Believers leads to that. This is in part what makes the whole TVC fiasco so bizarre to me. If any church/denomination ought to support Karen’s convictions and freedom of conscience, it ought to be a Baptist church. To insist pastors decide how the Bible applies in her situation and she is bound to her decision does violence to the Priesthood of All Believers doctrine; thereby, it is anything BUT Baptist!
CH David wrote:
I meant to insist on her following “THEIR”–i.e. the pastors’ convictions/decision–on the matter does violence to the doctrine of The Priesthood of All Believers.
I tend to be very curious about the methods of some of these guys – why is it not in the best interest of the truth you hold so dear to not allow respectful comments?
Let the comment go, and even if you don’t have time, or (the horror!) knowledge to respond to every one, can’t you trust the people you’ve educated, your followers, to fill in for you and defend your position? What am I missing here, seriously? Are your constituents really dunces? I can’t believe that.
I get the narrative control thing, etc, but I do like to attempt to see the best in folks, to get inside their heads and see if there’s a possible sensible motive, and I just don’t get it on this point. I mean, what goes through a guy’s mind when he moderates every opposing or simply questioning comment into oblivion?
This behavior strikes me in the same way my old HAC fundy church’s behavior appeared. They seemed to see their position as the epitome of the quest for perfect spiritual truth over the ages, and therefore there was nothing else to discuss, no reason to revisit or test old long-held beliefs or practices, no place for questions. The neo-Cal’s aren’t quite there yet, I believe, but I can see the signs.
If your system of truth has no place for simple questions, inquiring minds, or different perspectives, you might be in the wrong business.
CH David wrote:
Thank you! I didn’t realize why something bugged me about this, but you said it for me.
These guys at TVC and 9Marx are Baptists?? I’m familiar with IFB cults led by the MOG, but that never struck me as the tradional Baptist experience.
GovPappy wrote:
These are Founders Baptists, and they have been busy re-writing Baptist history for some time, now, and pushing their agenda. This is not what the SBC used to be. Tom Ascoll and Tom Nettles and Mark Dever and some others are re-making the SBC into their ideal.
Tim wrote:
Tim, how about 1. Dee is a woman; 2. Dee is a Feminist; 3. Dee is admonished by Paul to be silent.
CH David wrote:
Your comment is spot on. I was raised Baptist with the above drilled into our heads along with soul liberty.
Gram3 wrote:
Interesting. Guess I need to brush up on my Baptist history, both real and rewritten.
@ Gram3:
Bravo. Well said.
Darlene wrote:
And don’t forget…
4. Dee is really “Satin” (sic),
5. daughter of “Stan” (sic, unbeknownst to her Russian father).
Sincerely,
“Velour”
GovPappy wrote:
Trust me, the neo-Cal’s are *there*. They freely excommunicate and shun any dissenters, as we have seen in the news stories and for those like me and others here have experienced first hand.
Tim wrote:
haha exactly!
refugee wrote:
nice post
My summary of Garbarino’s post, he claims Merritt sidestepped Matthew 18, Garbarino then sidesteps Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25, 1 Peter 5:3 …
“Don’t lord it over people”
Which is the greater error?
Lydia wrote:
Matthew 18 is one of the most misinterpreted and misapplied passages in all of the New Testament. I don’t have the time to write up a lengthy explanation, but here a few thoughts, for what they’re worth:
(a) Jesus is not referring to every possible category of wrongdoing. For example: if John is an abusive husband and threatens to murder his wife Jane if he ever sees her again, do we really think that Jesus would want Jane to approach John one-on-one to try and resolve the issue? Of course not.
So what category of sin is Jesus addressing? The clue is in the following passage (The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant). Here, the sin in question that the Unforgiving Servant was supposed to forgive was a relatively minor financial issue involving default on a loan.
Certainly Jesus isn’t referring only to financial issues, but the example is certainly demonstrative of the broader concept, and one that was quite common and familiar to Jesus’ first century Jewish audience. So the example isn’t one of kind, but rather degree.
(b) So how would Jesus have us handle sinful leaders? Well, He doesn’t give us very specific teaching on this but he does give us quite a few examples of how to handle sinful leaders: he publicly excoriates them, often using name-calling (cf. Matt. 12; 21; 23; Lk. 11).
Paul builds on Jesus’ principles and gives us very specific teaching on this (cf. 1 Tim. 5), in which sinful leaders are to be publicly handled, rather than privately.
Michaela wrote:
That’s very well possible, considering how they “police their influences”, just like Fundies. You don’t have influence, unless you subscribe to their idea of doctrinal purity.
JeffT wrote:
So true. At my excommunication sermon (still available on line), my former “pastor” explained that Paul combined steps 3 and 4 of “church discipline.” “Tell it to the church”, he said, actually means “tell it to the church leaders.” As a result, I have been roundly shunned by many. many families, none of whom have any idea why they are shunning me. This whole thing is crazy.
I just visited the First Things website. I love its sub-heading: “America’s Most Influential Journal of Religion and Public Life.” Wow! How could I have missed it! I guess if Collin says it, it must be so!
I am sorry to be monopolizing this thread, but something in Collin Gabarino’s post jumped out at me:
“The pastors of The Village Church publicly apologized for “mishandling” their latest instance of church discipline.” My former pastor and elders acknowledged they “would have done things differently” in my case. It appears a consistent feature of church leaders that abuse is minimizing the violence they do to their sheep by minimizing it, and then reframing it as a “misunderstanding.” In an amazing act of projection, one of my former elders told me I was “guilty of showing myself more grace” than I showed others as he was giving me the angry left boot of fellowship.
@ JeffT:
Great comment.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
It looks like they cannot stand critics, mild ones at that. They want to witness to the world yet they hide behind the internet comment curtain. Real men can take critique.
Gram3 wrote:
Great assessment.
Gram3 wrote:
It is time that the entire elder process begin to be reassessed. At TVC, the current elders appoint the replacement elders. They blather that anyone in the contract congregation can suggest a name. However it is patently obvious that they only take guys who march lockstep with them.
If there was truly a cross section of men (they don’t allow women) Karen’s abuse would have been questioned and not allowed to continue. The system is deeply flawed. Let’s see if they do anything to correct it.
JeffT wrote:
I’m not sure we’ve thought through what the meaning of treating someone like Gentile or a tax collector. How many times when I’ve heard sermons about church discipline has that phrase been practically spit out with a veneer of self-righteousness? Instead, how did Jesus Himself treat Gentiles and tax gatherers? Basically, as people who don’t necessarily know much about the Kingdom, and therefore were starting at square one. He didn’t revile them for being Gentiles. He included a tax man in his inner circle, didn’t He?
So, how are we supposed to treat people who go through the Matthew 18 process and don’t listen? Would it perhaps be more a sort of sadness, but not exasperation? More of perseverance and kindness, not rejection and revulsion? More of going with the basics of the Kingdom, not raining down a bombardment of judgment?
I think we need to rethink that phrase …
Mr.H wrote:
He also put his money where his mouth was withstanding Peter to the face in front of everyone.
Of course Paul is an “elder” so he can do what he wants. Us common folk of course can’t do that.
I’ve been following these kind of stories for a few years now…Driscoll, Tony Jones, and now this lot here on TWW and I’ve been wondering what is applicable to us over here in the British church.
At the risk of sounding like #notallbaptists can I say that these interpretations of what Baptist polity is vary wildly from the way most British Baptists would understand it. We are congregationalist and most would say that the head of each church is Christ, and the members of the church come together at a church meeting to “discern the mind of Christ” so ultimate decision-making lies with the members’ meeting and not with a small group of elders; we would call that presbyterianism. The usual method of indicating the views of a meeting is by using a vote, and some would refer to the church as a democracy, but most would prefer to use the term ‘theocracy’ since we come under the Lordship of Christ, and the vote is only used to allow the views of all members to be expressed, not just the ones who have spoken.
It would be fair to say that we are not perfect 🙂 and our ways are just as open to difficulties and abuses but I find myself often puzzled by the claims some of these churches make to be baptist.
On a related matter, one of our most highly regarded theologians wrote this blog post a few years back titled “Why Baptists can’t (currently) be ‘complementarian” which I find very encouraging. Here it is: http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=896
Perhaps some of these might benefit from reading it … he is, after all, a male person! The discussion in the comments is pretty good too.
“What about church discipline? I’m certain that the discipline process of Matthew 18 was never to be applied in an institutional setting. I’ve never seen it done that didn’t result in abusive treatment, designed to manipulate people’s responses out of fear instead of inviting them into transformation and freedom. The things I had to do as a pastor to protect the environment now make me cringe with regret. The language of Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5 are far more powerful inside a community of friends.”
Wayne Jacobsen, “Finding Church: What if There Really is Something More?”(Kindle Locations 2835-2838)
I have noticed that abusive church leaders frequently attempt to impose “discipline” on an individual who has already notified the power-hungry leaders that they have resigned from their church. It seems to really get under their skin. Their response reminds me of the workplace boss who, when told by the abused employee that he is quitting responds with “You can’t quit, you’re fired!”
“Nothing can destroy fruitfulness faster than ungodly leadership—men and women who use positions of authority to manipulate and exploit people instead of serving their growth in Christ. This results partly from people who want to lord over others and partly from people who would rather follow a pastor, author, or other influential person than develop their own relationship with Jesus. We can’t ignore this danger under the guise of preserving Christian unity. Bad leadership needs to be recognized and resisted. Don’t allow anyone to curtail your own obedience to Jesus in the name of loyalty to a man or his institution. Rather find godly men and women whose hearts are more concerned for your fruitfulness, than their own. There you’ll find leaders after God’s heart.”
Jacobsen, Wayne (2011-11-03). In Season: Embracing the Father’s Process of Fruitfulness (Kindle Locations 1770-1776). . Kindle Edition.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
And that IS the fruit of authoritarianism. To bad the men who lead these institutions can’t/don’t/won’t see it.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Thank you for putting this into words. I’ve often pondered this, but never heard it expressed in just this way before.
refugee wrote:
Glad it was of help. I didn’t come up with that on my own, but in all the years that I’ve seen stuff on church discipline, I’ve only run across similar kinds of comments about patience, peace-making, kindness maybe only 2 or 3 times. Sorry I can’t recall the original source(s) for it … it may have been one commentary I read and one sermon I heard.
The angry-judgmental or isolate-them version, that one I’ve heard dozens of times, though. But that view just makes no sense — whyever would Jesus to be telling people to act like the Pharisees did toward the Gentiles and tax collectors?
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly! Jesus ministered to both Gentiles and tax collectors so your description has to be correct. And wasn’t Matthew himself a tax collector?
JeffT wrote:
Yes, indeedy — Matthew was a tax collector. Oddly enough, he wasn’t in charge of the Purse for the Poor, Judas was. Hmm.
Anyway, we have “on lips” from Jesus telling us how we’re *supposed* to treat the peeps who just don’t get it and refuse to listen, and we also have it “on life” from Jesus showing us how He interacted with people … including those in His inner circle who, uhh, many times just didn’t get it. At least, not at first.
Five-point Calvinists seem heaven-bent on “perseverance of the saints.” Perhaps five-point Jesus (is that heresy?) shows us perseverance *with* the saints.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
That happened to you, to Karen, and others on this blog. I think you are right!
I agree with AlbuquerqueBlue (about 100 posts back, I just don’t how to do this reply stuff). As he said, it’s surprising they allow any dissenting comments. It’s probably policy and some people can’t listen to another view. Whatever you said they wouldn’t believe.
@ Dr. Fundystan:
I guess I’m just curious why First Things cares. Last I heard, they were a conservative Catholic publication, or at least started as one. I would think they’d be gleefully pointing at TVC as an example of what happens when illegitimate (i.e., Protestant) “church” authorities try to do discipline and inevitably screw it up.
He is right that paedobaptist churches do think about membership very differently. But his confidence that church hierarchy automatically prevents abuse is completely naive and misplaced. Since, as far as I understand it, First Things started as a Catholic publication, they of all people should understand that. Maybe Dee’s reference to SNAP is what got her comment blackballed.
Finally! I see two comments now appear at First Things, both favorable to Karen’s side.
I just finished an older book first published 1965, “Organizational psychology” by Edgar H. Schein.
There is a story in it of a company that brought in some organizational consultants to train their 97 middle managers on proper management. After completing the training the middle managers found out how bad upper management was. Turnover had typically been 3-4% each year but after finding their leaders were screwed up and incapable of admitting error, 20% left the company within the first year with another 25% looking. The ones leaving were not the dead wood.
It sounded like an analogy to what is talked about here. If more people had an idea what the church should and shouldn’t look like, more people would be empowered and would leave toxic churches.
Luckily businesses don’t require you to sign an employment covenant that requires you to turn over our first born if you want to leave the company.
Bill M wrote:
Shhh, you’ll give them ideas.
@ Sharon:
Collin Garbarino contacted me. He’s actually a nice guy. He said he wasn’t the one who deletes comments. We ended up having a good discussion. I happened to mention, in response to my comment being too long maybe, that it didn’t matter, there were no comments over there anyway!
@ Sarah Fegredo:
Thank you for your fascinating comment. I would be interested in learning more from your perspective.
@ Tim:
So true, so funny, so sad.
dee wrote:
What in particular are you interested in? I’m not a great expert but I am a Baptist minister and I’m always interested in in discussion.
Todd – Brad – JeffT
Much agreement with how you are questioning Mat 18 – And “church disipline.’
I posted this at “First Things” yeasterday – It did NOT make it past moderation.
I posted it again today at “First Things” – And also posted it on Collins own blog
http://collingarbarino.com/2015/06/08/the-democratic-foundations-of-church-discipline/comment-page-1/#comment-4288
——–
Collin
You write…
“Yes, 9Marks has done much to promote the idea of **church discipline** in America, but they root their definition in Jesus’s teachings.”
BUT – I can NOT find Jesus teaching about “church discipline” in my antquated KJV.
Isn’t Mat 18:15-17, which you quote, much more about Two Brothers?
And the outcome desired, is to be, “thou hast gained *thy brother?*
And says NOT one thing about “church discipline?”
Mat 18:15-17 KJV
15 Moreover if *thy brother* shall trespass against *thee,* (Thee is Me, Amos.)
go and tell him his fault between *thee* and him alone:
if he shall hear *thee,* thou hast gained **thy brother.**
16 But if he will not hear *thee,* then take with *thee* one or two more, (Thee is Me, Amos.)
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: (Assembly)
but if he neglect to hear the church, (His Called Out Ones, His Body)
let him be unto *thee* as an **heathen man and a publican.** (Thee is Me, Amos.)
———
I do NOT really know what it means… Or, what I should do…
When “he (MY Brother,) neglects to hear the church,” (His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones)
And I, Amos, his brother, is to…
“let him be unto *thee* (Thee is Me, Amos.) (NOT the church.)
as an **heathen man and a publican.**”
I do NOT see in these verses the assembly, the ekklesia, the church, disciplining anyone.
I do NOT see anyone removing My Brother from the Assembly, His Body.
NOPE, “discipline,” “church discipline” is NOT mentioned at all in Mat 18…
When My Brother neglects to hear the assembly, the called out ones, the body…
It is left up to *thee.* (Thee is Me, Amos.)
How I treat him, My Brother, “as an heathen man and a publican.”
Best I can figure… A good rule of thumb is to see…
How did Jesus interact with “heathens and publicans?”
How did Jesus, treat a “heathen man and a publican?”
Maybe the test is for me…
To Love My enemies, bless them that curse Me,
Do good to them that hate Me, and pray for them
Which despitefully use Me, and persecute Me…
Yeah…
How did Jesus, treat a “heathen man and a publican?”
Todd – Brad – JeffT
And this was posted today at both “First Things” and Collins blog.
Both are in Moderation – But they have to read it to delete it. 😉
Collin
How did Jesus, treat a “heathen man and a publican?”
Didn’t Jesus hang out with the sinners, wine bibbers, and publicans?
Who could complain about that?
Wasn’t it the Religious Leaders, the Pharisees, scribes, who complained…
When Jesus sought out the “publicans and sinners.”
When Jesus went to the home of the “publicans and sinners.”
When Jesus had dinner with the “publicans and sinners.”
When Jesus Loved them… The “publicans and sinners.”
Mark 2:16
And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him
eat with **publicans and sinners,** they said unto his disciples,
How is it that he eateth and drinketh with **publicans and sinners?**
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them,
They that are whole have no need of the physician,
but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance.
Luke 3:12
Then came also *publicans* to be baptized,
and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
Lu 5:29
And Levi made him (Jesus) a great feast in his own house:
and there was a great company of *publicans* and of others that sat down with them.
Lu 15:1
Then drew near unto him all the **publicans and sinners** for to hear him.
NOPE – In MAT 18, you can NOT find “discipline,” or “church discipline.”
You can NOT find My Brother being “kicked out of the church.”
Or, My Brother being “voted out of the church.”
In Matthew 18…
I kinda see Jesus asking WE, His Sheep, His Ekklesia, His Church, His Body…
When *thy brother* shall trespass against *thee,* (Thee is Me, Amos.)
To forgive… and love…
From our hearts…
Our Brother…
And treat My Brother as Jesus treated the publicans and sinners.
Yeah… Maybe the test is for *Thee?” (Thee is Me, Amos.)
@ A. Amos Love:
Collin has posted both comments on his Blog. And has responded.
First Things has posted the second comment
What is interesting is that Matthew 18 is not even a pretext for church discipline. It is an admonishment by Jesus against legalism on every little offense. Jesus would not have gone against Torah jurisprudence and major offenses that already had witnesses and were major offenses like sexual abuse or murder. They would go to Sanhedrin immediately and would NOT apply to a three stage process in Matthew 18.