# Looking for advice



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 14, 2011)

Hi:

When I was an intern an issue was raised by a wife concerning her husband. The issue was an egregious one, and something that has been occurring over a long period of time. The husband and wife were not in any marriage counseling, and a few years earlier the husband was spoken to about his behavior. At that time the pastor did not think much of the issue(s), and thought that the problems were such that were normal in any marriage.

After the wife made the complaint the husband was invited to a meeting with the express purpose of speaking to him about his candidacy for the deaconate. The discussion concerning his candidacy took about 5 minutes. The rest of the 2 hour meeting was about the complaint concerning his behavior. After the meeting the pastor said that he was going to discuss this at Presbytery.

The Presbytery reviewed the case, and voted to place the husband on Church discipline.

Now, of what I know of the case I do not think that the presbytery made the wrong decision. However, I question the manner in which this issue was conducted. Specifically, that Matthew 18 principles does not seem to have been followed.

What is the thought concerning this matter? Does a pastor, session, or presbytery have the right to forgo Matthew 18 principles in certain cases?

Thanks for your answers in advance.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jul 14, 2011)

What's the mechanism in your book of church order? In the PCA and I believe the OPC there has to be a trial, which involves a citation, then an indictment. And the trial has to be held in the originating Session, with the Pastor as Moderator. Even then, you can't withhold communion until the trial is over (provided he wants a trial) and even then, even if the Session finds the guy guilty all he has to do is say during the trial he plans on appealing and he still can't be denied communion.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 14, 2011)

Matthew 18 is often cited as a hard and fast rule for any sort of disciplinary action, with the result too often being that discipline is avoided or criticized because it didn't follow certain exact procedures that may not even stem from the sort of situation Jesus was addressing. I think you're right to call it a "principle." The principle is private confrontation first, with increasing levels of church involvement and publicity if the sinner remains unrepentant.

We can't judge how adeptly this was handled without knowing the details of that talk with the pastor, which would be inappropriate to discuss here. It sounds like perhaps it could have been handled with more forthrightness or a bit more slowly. But that's hard to say, and not our place to do so. A pastor in that situation must judge how aggressively to push things based on what he, as a doctor of souls, feels is most likely to bring the sinner to repentance. Sometimes pastors do misjudge this.

It does sound like all the steps in the Matthew 18 scenario were included: Man confronted privately (presumably by his wife), then confronted by elders (meeting with the pastor), then the matter brought before the church. In all the Reformed churches I've been a part of, the highest this would go is the church session/consistory unless the member appealed to presbytery. But perhaps you guys do it a bit differently.


----------



## TimV (Jul 14, 2011)

> We can't judge how adeptly this was handled without knowing the details of that talk with the pastor, which would be inappropriate to discuss here. It sounds like perhaps it could have been handled with more forthrightness or a bit more slowly. But that's hard to say, and not our place to do so. A pastor in that situation must judge how aggressively to push things based on what he, as a doctor of souls, feels is most likely to bring the sinner to repentance.



That's true in baptist churches but in Reformed churches the pastor doesn't have that sort of power. He has to follow the rules. If a cop pulls me over for speeding and tells me he's going to fine me 1000 dollars and take away my license for a year he'll get in more trouble than I would, even though I was speeding. It's that way in Reformed churches. If what Rob reported is accurate, the guy could send out a certified letter and force everyone involved to publicly apologize.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 14, 2011)

TimV said:


> > We can't judge how adeptly this was handled without knowing the details of that talk with the pastor, which would be inappropriate to discuss here. It sounds like perhaps it could have been handled with more forthrightness or a bit more slowly. But that's hard to say, and not our place to do so. A pastor in that situation must judge how aggressively to push things based on what he, as a doctor of souls, feels is most likely to bring the sinner to repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true in baptist churches but in Reformed churches the pastor doesn't have that sort of power. He has to follow the rules. If a cop pulls me over for speeding and tells me he's going to fine me 1000 dollars and take away my license for a year he'll get in more trouble than I would, even though I was speeding. It's that way in Reformed churches. If what Rob reported is accurate, the guy could send out a certified letter and force everyone involved to publicly apologize.



Yes, there's procedure to follow if it ends up in a situation where the elders must serve as a church court and consider barring the member from fellowship. My point has to do with what comes before it ever gets that far. At some point, those who are directly shepherding this member have to determine whether or not the church is best served and the individual best shephered by by taking the matter to the whole session. The nature of the charges and evidence or absence of repentance are considerations.

In Presbyterian/Reformed government, procedures to bar a member from fellowship should be the last step in discipline, only utilized as a final resort. Private counseling should come before it, and knowing how quickly to take things to the next step, if at all, is sometimes a tough judgment call involving shepherding wisdom.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 15, 2011)

Hi:

Thanks, men, for your input - it has been helpful.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Edward (Jul 15, 2011)

I'd recommend that you review your Book of Church order, and then bring any questions that you have to your pastor. It would be different in the PCA (discipline would be from the session, with appeal to the presbytery),


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2011)

Maybe I am missing something. How was Matthew 18 not followed? Was this man also to be considered for a deacons position or was he inquiring to be a deacon? If so an examination might have lead to this process also. I guess I am not following where things went array or how Matthew 18 wasn't followed. There just isn't enough information to understand the situation and speculation here is not necessarily wise. I am not sure bringing this up here is wise either. Just my humble opinion. Did you ask for more clarification from the Elders that you might learn about how to deal with the situation peradventure it may come up in your future ministry? I would have started there first. But then again you might have.


----------

