Brethren, if a man is
overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit
of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one
another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. Gal.6:1-2
What do you do when
you see someone’s problem or sin? What if another person offends you? Do you
just blindly overlook the offense or do you let the person have it (in love of
course!)? How do you truly help someone who has sinned? Is ‘repentance’ the
only goal? If so, does it matter how the goal is achieved?
The answers to
these questions are key to the health and well being
of the church and of her members. In Matthew chapters 7 and 18, Jesus laid out
for his disciples and for those who would follow them, clear steps of church
discipline. He has provided a way to save you and everyone involved a lot of
grief by giving a biblical pattern to be followed when it becomes necessary to
correct a person guilty of a sin or of an offense. If you adhere to the five
steps based on the two passages, you will be much more successful in restoring
your brother:
And why do you look at the
speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or
how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’: and
look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your
own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s
eye. Matt.7:3-5
Moreover if your brother
sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he
hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you
one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he
refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax
collector. Matt.18:15-17
1.
Check your attitude
First, have you
have dealt with your own shortcomings of the same nature? Are you sure you have
not done something to trigger the transgression in the other person (Rom.2:3)?
You must approach the other person in humility and not with an offended
attitude. For your own sake, avoid a self-righteous attitude so that the enemy
does not set you up for a fall later on (1 Cor.10:12). It is also important to
differentiate between sin, immaturity, and preferences in practices held by
your church. A person can have a heart for God, yet because of a lack of
training do things that do not mesh with the culture of your local church. In
those cases, a little patience and loving guidance is all that is necessary. If
you are not sure on how to handle a situation, ask your mentor or pastor for
advice (without mentioning names).
2. Go to the person in
private
Don’t expose the
person by telling the issue to others in the guise of seeking advice
(Prov.18:13, 17; 25:9-10). If this step is not taken at the beginning,
resolving the matter can grow exponentially in complexity and difficulty by the
number of people involved. Another offense can arise if the person finds out
you have been talking about him in his absence. Matthew Henry’s Commentary of
Matthew 18:15-17 begins with:
Let us apply it to the
quarrels that happen, upon any account, among Christians. If thy brother
trespass against thee, by grieving thy soul (1 Co. 8:12), by affronting thee,
or putting contempt or abuse upon thee; if he blemish thy good name by false
reports or tale-bearing; if he encroach on thy rights, or be any way injurious
to thee in thy estate; if he be guilty of any of those trespasses that are
specified, Lev. 6:2, 3; if he transgress the laws of justice, charity, or
relative duties; these are trespasses against us, and often happen among
Christ’s disciples, and sometimes, for want of prudence, are of very
mischievous consequence. Now observe what is the rule
prescribed in this case,
Go, and tell him his
fault between thee and him alone.
Let this be compared with, and explained by, Lev. 19:17, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; that is, “If
thou hast conceived a displeasure at thy brother for any injury he hath done
thee, do not suffer thy resentments to ripen into a secret malice (like a
wound, which is most dangerous when it bleed inwardly), but give vent to them
in a mild and grave admonition, let them so spend themselves, and they will
expire the sooner; do not go and rail against him behind his back, but thou shalt in any ways reprove him. If he has indeed done thee a
considerable wrong, endeavour to make him sensible of
it, but let the rebuke be private, between thee and him alone; if thou wouldest convince him, do not expose him, for that will but
exasperate him, and make the reproof look like a revenge.” this agrees with Prov. 25:8, 9, Go not forth hastily to strive, but
debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself,
argue it calmly and amicably; and if he shall hear thee, well and good, thou
hast gained thy brother, there is an end of the controversy, and it is a
happy end; let no more be said of it, but let the falling out of friends be the
renewing of friendship.
There is good
reason for keeping the initial correction private and on an exploratory basis.
Do you really know why the person you are correcting did what he did? Consider
his response. Maybe there was something happening in his life that caused him
to hurt you. You never know what’s going on behind the scenes of another
person’s life.
Jumping to a
conclusion
An example of
jumping to conclusions comes from author Steven Covey.
One evening after a
long conference, Covey had boarded a subway headed for his hotel. At one stop a
father and his three children boarded. The man sat down and just sort of stared
out the window. His kids began to act up and then went wild. They picked and
poked and annoyed all the passengers around him. The father made no effort to
discipline them. When Covey could take no more he walked over and confronted
the man, "Excuse me sir. Your kids are causing quite a disturbance. Could
you do something about it?" The man looked up as if awakened from a dream
and said, “Oh, I’m sorry, of course. My kids aren’t themselves. You see their
mother just died a little while ago today and I don’t know how to handle it
all.”
Covey’s perspective
on the situation changed immediately and he took steps to comfort the man
rather than condemn him.
Prov.15:28 The heart of the
righteous studies how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours forth evil.
Prov.18:13 He who answers a
matter before he hears [it,] It [is] folly and shame to him.
v15 The heart of the
prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
v17
The first [one] to plead his cause [seems] right, Until his
neighbor comes and examines him.
John 7:51 "Does our law judge a man before
it hears him and knows what he is doing?"
Deut.1:17 'You shall not show
partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you
shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the judgment [is] God's. The
case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it.'
Deut.19:15 One witness shall
not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by
the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.
Some will say it doesn’t matter what steps you take to bring correction or who you talk to as long as you are sincere. After all, they may think the bottom line is to get the offending person to change. However, the issue of privacy and confidentiality is neither about your sincerity of purpose or of motivation. Sincerity, though assumed, is a separate issue from policy.
Good hearts and
bad actions
For instance:
Suppose driving down one of the streets in
Then again, suppose
you pull up along side a car at a red light. Inside the other car is the
sourest, most repugnant man you’ve ever seen. You glance his way offering a
smile only to receive a snarl and a bitter expression in return as he glares
back at you. The light turns green and both of you drive off harmlessly to the
respective destinations.
With which of these
driving situations are you safe? The first driver is dangerous not by her
attitude but by her understanding of traffic policy. The second driver, while
very belligerent, abides by the law and does no real damage. In nearly all
cases, the outcome is better for a bad person to follow a good policy than for
a good person to follow a bad policy.
Hence, to
circumvent the biblical policy of correction in any way, even with the best
intentions, is only to invite calamity and misunderstanding. Biblical love has
nothing to do with warm feelings. Love
is dong God’s best for another person God’s way. John MacArthur explains the necessity of
correct protocol further in his commentary on Matthew 18:15:
The understood subjects of go
and reprove are indicated by the plural pronouns “you” and “your”
(vv.15-16). Jesus was giving general instruction to His followers, and
therefore this category is also inclusive. The person responsible for
initiating discipline is any believer who is aware of another believer’s sin.
Discipline is not simply the responsibility of church officials but of every
member.
The first confrontation of
a sinning brother must be in private, one on one. If the erring person
confesses and repents, no further discipline is necessary and no one else need
ever be brought into the matter. The more a person’s sin is known and discussed
by others, no matter how well-meaning they may be, the easier it is for him to
become resentful and the harder it may be for repentance and restoration. When
he is corrected in private, and in a spirit of
humility and love, his change of heart is much more likely. And if he does
repent, a unique and marvelous bond of intimacy is established between the two
believers, indicated by the phrase you have gained your brother.
3. Take another person
with you…
…Only if step 2
doesn’t work. In other words, don’t pass the responsibility off to someone else
to confront the offending person. If you do, the person left to do the
correction has only hearsay as evidence to work with and would be put in the
dreadful position of taking up an offense on your behalf. Besides, every person
has the right to stand before their ‘accuser’ (Deut.19:15-20; John 7:51).
M.H.C. Matt.18:16 If he
will not hear thee, if he will not own himself in a fault, nor come to an agreement,
yet do not despair, but try what he will say to it, if thou take one or two
or more, not only to be witnesses of what passes, but to reason the case
further with him; he will be the more likely to hearken to them because they
are disinterested; and if reason will rule him, the word of reason in the mouth
of two or three witnesses will be better spoken to him (Plus vident oculi quam oculus—Many
eyes see more than one), and more regarded by him, and perhaps it will
influence him to acknowledge his error, and to say, I repent.
Reason is the
operative word in this step. The primary purpose of bringing another person(s)
is to gain a better understanding of the situation. Every effort must be made
in the discussion to help him see his own thoughts for what they are, good or
bad. Hearing his thoughts and reasons will help you understand where he is
coming from as a starting point in the conversation before attempting to lead
him to a new conclusion of his actions and attitudes which will ultimately result
in his repentance and restoration.
Taking one or two
with you for the purpose of ganging up on the person to force him to change is
not what this step is about. Grilling the accused by tribunal in a punitive
manner will backfire (Prov.15:1; James 2:13). If the person being confronted is
not allowed to participate in the reasoning process, he will most certainly
become exasperated.
Should the person
have offended others and these others also approach the person individually, a
pretty strong message will be sent each time the person is confronted. If the
issue is sin and it persists after the biblical pattern has been followed, the
issue will eventually be brought to the elders. All the while confidentiality
is preserved because the number of people participating are limited to only
those who are directly involved.
Before confronting,
a caution must be heeded to limit the evidence to that which is at hand.
Bringing up the past to strengthen your case when you confront is a
questionable tactic. A court of law restricts the plaintiff from introducing
evidence that is not germane to the case or from past convictions. If you feel
strongly compelled to dig up the past or to ask around about the person you are
going to confront, check the godliness of your motivation.
M.H.C. Prov.16:27 There are
those that are not only vicious themselves, but spiteful and mischievous to
others, and they are the worst of men; two sorts of such are here described:- 1. Such as envy a man the honour
of his good name, and do all they can to blast that by calumnies and
misrepresentations: They dig up evil; they take a great deal of pains to find
out something or other on which to ground a slander, or which may give some colour to it. If none appear above ground, rather than want
it they will dig for it, by diving into what is secret, or looking a great way
back, or by evil suspicions and surmises, and forced innuendos. In the lips of
a slanderer and backbiter there is as a fire, not only to brand his neighbour’s reputation, to smoke and sully it, but as a
burning fire to consume it. And how great a matter does a little of this fire
kindle, and how hardly is it extinguished! James 3:5, 6.
Gossip and
Slander
What are gossip,
whispering, an evil report, an unfavorable saying, slander, tale-bearing, and defamation? In
most cases one would think these are associated with malice. Nevertheless by
definition these terms actually refer to the act of disclosing private matters
behind someone’s back that damages the reputation, regardless of intent. You
don’t necessarily have to have an evil purpose to commit one of these verbal
offenses. These can result from a lack of discretion or in the case of this
study a misunderstanding of the biblical process of correction.
Suppose I’m
approached by another church member who asks, “How is Joe doing?” and I answer
with, “Oh, Joe’s OK, although we should pray for him. He’s struggling a little
with his marriage.” If I do, I’ve
slandered and defamed Joe. Why? Because I’ve cast a disparaging remark that did
not place Joe in the best light. I may really like Joe, yet I have not acted in
love towards him because I have not obeyed scripture concerning discretion.
Does Joe have marriage problems? Probably, but to what
degree? In any case, I’ve exposed and misrepresented Joe in a way that
does not benefit or honor him. Like the old WWII navy motto, “loose lips, sink
ships” you must watch what you say and whom you say it to. This saying can be
applied today as, “loose lips, sink churches!”
What if a leader in
the church commits the offense? Do you ignore it out of deference to position
or title? Do you blast the leader because he “incurs a stricter judgment?” Sticky? Yes. Again,
scripture must navigate you through what could be disastrous waters. Leaders
are “men with the same nature as you (Acts 14:15)” who are subject to failings
in the flesh. To make the Nicolaitan error of
treating leaders as being in another class or caste functioning under a
different set of rules helps neither you nor them. History has shown the tragedy
and embarrassment to the Church when distinctions and separations are made
between members and leaders. Yet to maintain the honor due leaders, Matthew
Henry clarifies the method the apostle Paul stated for appealing to them in the
context of the pattern Jesus commissioned in Matthew 18. Don’t be afraid to
approach a leader. After all, those whom God calls to the position of
leadership aspire to be gentle and not quarrelsome (1 Tim.3:3).
M.H.C. 1 Timothy 5:19 Concerning the accusation of ministers (v. 19): Against
an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Here
is the scripture-method of proceeding against an elder, when accused of any
crime. Observe, 1. There must be an accusation; it
must not be a flying uncertain report, but an accusation, containing a certain
charge, must be drawn up. Further, He is not to be proceeded against by way of
enquiry; this is according to the modern practice of the inquisition, which
draws up articles for men to purge themselves of such crimes, or else to accuse
themselves; but, according to the advice of Paul, there must be an accusation
brought against an elder. 2. This accusation is not to be received unless
supported by two or three credible witnesses; and the accusation must be
received before them, that is, the accused must have the accusers face to face,
because the reputation of a minister is, in a particular manner, a tender
thing; and therefore, before any thing be done in the least to blemish that
reputation, great care should be taken that the thing alleged against him be
well proved, that he be not reproached upon an uncertain surmise; "but (v.
20) those that sin rebuke before all; that is, thou needest
not be so tender of other people, but rebuke them publicly.’’ Or "those that
sin before all rebuke before all, that the plaster may be as wide as the wound,
and that those who are in danger of sinning by the example of their fall may
take warning by the rebuke given them for it, that others also may fear.”
Confidentiality
It is essential at
this point (as in all of the steps) to diligently guard confidentiality. By now
you have heard the other person’s side of the story. However, like the hazard
created by the lady driving on the wrong side in the example above, repeating
the story to another person (including leaders) is dangerous and
counter-productive. It’s unfair to the other person for only one side to be
heard before all of you meet together. The intention for telling others
information may be for good and may actually seem to work in the short run (ie. the person changes despite the violation of protocol).
But in the long run this repeated pattern of exposé affects the trust level in
the church.
Life and death is
in the power of the tongue. Even little comments or innuendos about a person’s
problems or struggles can taint and bias others’ opinions of him. What you say
about another person will either raise or lower the listener’s expectations or
faith for what God can do in the person in question. Even Jesus’ ministry was hindered
by what others in His home town were saying about Him (Matt.13:54-58). The
insinuations and gossip about the legitimacy of His birth, His qualifications,
and even about His teachings kept people from receiving much, if anything, from
Him. If this happened towards Jesus, you should be cautious about repeating the
same mistake His hometown made by what you say or reveal to others.
For the church to
be strong, it needs a durable faith in God’s ability to work through ordinary
people manifested in correct practices of His Word. In other words, the ends
don’t justify the means; you must respect the privacy and dignity of others as
you would want them to do for you by exercising the steps of correction Jesus
laid out. If not, alienation, mistrust, and disunity can result when a
confidence is betrayed. Any violation of trust and privacy is as dangerous to
the health of a church as the sin committed. Sometimes it’s worse.
Confidentiality is
not the only reason to be discreet. Accuracy and understanding is also key. Remember the children’s story telling game where one
person begins by whispering a story into the ear of her neighbor who in turn
whispers to his neighbor what he thought he heard and so on and so forth? When
the last person is told the story, that person tells everyone the story she
thinks she heard. What started out as, “Rebecca got a stain on her blue dress
while on her way to the store to buy eggs, milk, and butter” ends up as “Becky
spilled milk all over her new dress and her mom is really mad at her.” Each
person heard the story through their own mental filter, adding or deleting
information based on perceptions and their own past experiences. No matter how
well meaning each person was, they were unable to fully represent the original
story. Likewise, when the initial confronting person disconnects from the
restoration process by leaving the issue in the hands of another person
including those of the most noble leader or pastor, the information is at risk
of becoming skewed or exaggerated.
Clearly Jesus has
instructed the confronting person to be actively involved through out the
entire process (Matt.18:15-17). The person who observes the transgression must
never be irresponsible by passing off the confrontation to another person to
handle. Jesus had a reason for limiting leadership’s involvement until the next
level. Not only does this process free up pastors and elders to lead the
church, but personal responsibility is also developed in members through the
course of action.
4.
Take it to the church…
… only if step 3
doesn’t work. When you reach an impasse with the offending person and the
witness of others is ineffective, it’s time to involve church leadership.
Leadership’s goal is to bring resolution, repentance, and restoration in view
of the impact on the church community.
M.H.C. Matt.18:17 If he
shall neglect to hear them, and will not refer the matter to their
arbitration, then tell it to the church, to the ministers, elders, or
other officers, or the most considerable persons in the congregation you belong
to, make them the referees to accommodate the matter, and do not presently
appeal to the magistrate, or fetch a writ for him. This is fully explained by
the apostle (1
At this level of
church discipline the seriousness of the matter has escalated. The success of
ministry at this point greatly depends on how well the preceding steps were
handled. If one of the earlier steps was bypassed for expediency, more problems
will be created than might be solved. As in a court of law, if the one who
makes the claim of offense against the defendant does not show up in court or
details are lacking, the case is dismissed. Hearsay is inadmissible evidence.
You must remain active and be forthright about the facts before the church
leadership.
M.H.C. Deut. 1:16-17 Those that are advanced to honour
must know that they are charged with business, and must give account another
day of their charge. (1.) He charges them to be diligent and patient: Hear the
causes. Hear both sides, hear them fully, hear them carefully; for nature has
provided us with two ears, and he that answereth a
matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to
him. The ear of the learner is necessary to the tongue of the learned, Isa. 50:4. (2.) To be just and impartial: Judge
righteously. Judgment must be given according to the merits of the cause,
without regard to the quality of the parties. The natives must not be suffered
to abuse the strangers any more that the strangers to insult the natives or to
encroach upon them; the great must not be suffered to oppress the small, nor to
crush them, any more than the small, to rob the great, or to affront them. No
faces must be known in judgment, but unbribed
unbiased equity must always pass sentence. (3.) To be resolute and courageous:
“You shall not be afraid of the face of man; be not overawed to do an ill
thing, either by the clamours of the crowd or by the
menaces of those that have power in their hands.” And he gave them a good
reason to enforce this charge: “For the judgment is God’s. You are God’s
vicegerents, you act for him, and therefore must act like him; you are his
representatives, but if you judge unrighteously, you
misrepresent him. The judgment is his, and therefore he will protect you in
doing right, and will certainly call you to account if you do wrong.” 3. He
allowed them to bring all difficult cases to him, and he would always be ready
to hear and determine, and to make both the judges and the people easy. Happy
art thou. O
Granted, sin must
be addressed for everyone’s sake. Nevertheless, the manner in which you and the
leaders joining you approach a person makes a difference in the outcome. Even
the wisest person can get upset and say regretful things (i.e. “mad” or
irrational) when feeling unjustly subjugated by others (Eccl.7:7). It is also
difficult to convince an offended or defensive person of his need to change
(Prov.18:19). While you may elicit a verbal statement of penance from the
person, the question remains, is it change from the heart? Coercion,
intimidation, or ‘pulling rank’ as a tactic to deliver the counsel of God can
repress a negative attitude or action in the short run, but will seldom result
in lasting transformation. Eventually the problem will resurface because the
individual’s heart has not been won over. The use of force only adds to the
umbrage.
A winning
attitude
How can ministry be
successful? By reaching the person’s heart. You must
win the person’s trust to encourage him to open up his life in honesty. Why?
Doesn’t God patiently reason with you about your sin? Absolutely (Isa.1:18-20;
43:25; Heb.8:12). Unlike the devil, God doesn’t remind you of your failures
(Ps.103:10, 12). God does not dig up your past as a method to make you change.
It is His loving kindness that draws you to repentance (Rom.2:4). Therefore you
should do likewise with the shortcomings of others. Wisdom dictates taking the
time to understand the other person’s viewpoint before attempting to make him
understand one that is different and hopefully better.
An exception to the
process of patiently taking time to resolve issues between individual members
is concerning the sin that has civil consequence. In order to protect the
church, the pastor needs to have knowledge of any member who has a history of
child abuse, sexual misconduct, or a criminal record. These sins can affect
other members in addition to the church’s reputation in the community. The
proper way of handling these serious and perplexing issues is to take the
person in question with you to the pastor or a senior leader for counsel and
confession as soon as possible. If he is unwilling to accompany you, let him
know you will be contacting the pastor for guidance with the intent of the
person’s redemption. Should the person not respond to the various levels of
appeal, there is one final and necessary step.
5.
Excommunication
Revoking of
membership is the last resort the elders have to handle unrepentant sin. This
is an act of love for the person and for the church because it is the quickest
way towards repentance and restoration. (1 Cor.5:1-6; 2
Thess.3:14-15)
M.H.C. Matt.18:17 If he
will not hear the church, will not stand to their award, but persists in
the wrong he has done thee, and proceeds to do thee further wrong, let him
be to thee as a heathen man, and a publican; take the benefit of the law
against him, but let that always be the last remedy; appeal not to the courts
of justice till thou hast first tried all other means to compromise the matter
in variance. Or thou mayest, if thou wilt, break off
thy friendship and familiarity with him; though thou must by no means study
revenge, yet thou mayest choose whether thou wilt
have any dealings with him, at least, in such a way as may give him an
opportunity of doing the like again. Thou wouldest
have healed him, wouldest have preserved his
friendship, but he would not, and so has forfeited it. If a
man cheat and abuse me once, it is his fault; if twice, it is my own.
Playing it out
What does the
biblical process look like in action? The following scenarios show a wrong way
and a right way for two people to work out a difference. For instance:
·
Bob talks to Al
about a wrong Al committed.
·
Not satisfied
with Al’s response, Bob approaches church leader Carl with a ‘concern’ for Al.
When asked why he didn’t talk to Al directly, Bob claims to be too
uncomfortable to talk with Al anymore. So Carl takes over with the sincere
belief he can straighten everything out.
·
Carl wants more
information so he talks to Al’s friend Dan to find out if Dan sees Al’s problem,
too. Dan complies by telling Carl about
conversations with Al concerning the issue.
·
Carl calls a
meeting with Al, Dan, and now includes Ed to confront Al’s problem. Carl is representing Bob’s side so Bob is not
present. This leaves Al feeling misunderstood and pre-judged about the issue.
·
Even if a good
portion of the discernment and counsel is correct, Al is exasperated and
offended by the way information is transmitted and struggles to receive the
correction. Al has a choice to accept the verdict or leave.
A person-by-person
analysis of what went wrong in the previous scenario shows why simple disputes
can become so complicated when everyone involved do not follow the biblical
process of church discipline:
·
Al’s fault,
besides committing the wrong, is in revealing the nature of a private issue to
Dan without Bob present.
·
Bob’s error of
not keeping the issue private (Prov.25:9-10) included disengaging himself from
the correction process after meeting with Al.
·
Carl’s mistakes
are manifold. First he began by not directing Bob back to Al. Secondly he spoke
to Dan about Al without Al present. Third he took up Bob’s side (Prov.18:13,
17). Finally he convened a meeting without Bob present. Inviting participation
from Ed who was not involved in the first place, is questionable.
·
Dan’s faults
were not directing Al back to Bob to work out their differences (Prov.17:9) and
speaking to Carl about Al without Al present.
·
Ed should
consider whether accepting involvement is prudent (Prov.26:17). However, if Ed
were a leader and Bob was still involved in the process, he may be the best
position to maintain the sense of fairness and impartiality in the final
meeting if Carl had still taken sides.
The right way
Following is the
biblical pattern that should have transpired for this scenario:
·
Bob approaches
Al to discuss the issue and inquire about Al’s viewpoint. Several sessions of
dialogue take place to bring understanding and resolution.
·
Should an
impasse occur, Bob invites Carl to objectively join in the discussion with Al
to hear each side of the issue, to help resolve the differences, and to help Al
see the area of need for change.
·
If the issue is
still unresolved, Bob invites church leadership (including Carl) to preside
over the meeting with Al to hear each person’s story to reach a resolution and
a plan of ministry if necessary.
·
If Al disregards
the leadership’s counsel and if the issue is truly gross sin, excommunication
is the final step.
The biblical
pattern involves far fewer people and is much more discreet than the
undisciplined approach of the first scenario. In most cases, the issues would
be cleared up by the second step without requiring full church leadership
involvement.
The benefit of
proper church discipline to a growing church is manifold:
·
Members learn to
be responsible for solving problems rather than relying solely on leadership’s
intervention. Proper execution of Jesus’ resolution process is in itself
on-the-job training for future leaders, a key factor for growth.
·
Leadership is
unburdened with the smaller problems to allow more time and energy for
equipping the saints and ministry planning.
·
The correction
process is begun sooner instead of later since the member is not waiting for
leadership or someone else to take responsibility for confronting sin.
(Eccl.8:11).
·
Church problems
are solved quickly in the most judicious and respectful way so that Jesus’ name
is not dishonored before the world by internal issues blown out of proportion.
·
The “fuel” available
for the demonic to use to inflame accusations in the church is reduced since
biblical love is exercised in covering a multitude of sins. The church is
spared the energy drain that results from infighting, disputes, and
ill-feelings from mishandled and unresolved conflict. Hence, more power is
available to the church to reach a lost and dying world with the Gospel.
Restoration
The final and
crucial thought to consider is your response after a person repents. You cannot
give the impression to the returning saint that he is a second class Christian.
God’s pattern of correcting people in Revelation 2:1-3:22 is to point out the
problem that was hindering them from becoming what they could be. He ended His
correction with faith and vision, not with condemnation. Your goal in church
discipline is not merely to keep a mistake from happening, but to provide a
means for the person to learn and grow from his mistakes. Thereby the church
will grow in strength as each individual matures and continues to contribute (Eph.4:16).