# Discipline disciples...



## kceaster (Mar 29, 2004)

I was having a conversation with a brother on the Lord's day and it occurred to me that quite a bit of energy has been spent in the last two decades over who is in the church and who isn't, who is a Christian and who isn't, who is in the covenant and who isn't.

Do you all think if we were truly practicing discipline, we wouldn't need to make these distinctions? Why is it important to know who's in and who's out? Especially when we keep talking about hypotheticals and not real world people.

Can't it be just simply living in the covenant with each other, and encouraging all to go on to perfection, and admonish those who don't seem to be? That when we are faced with a member's sin, we rightly admonish and censure them?

If we were carrying out true discipline, would we need to make a distinction?

Do you all know what I am saying?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 29, 2004)

I was reading Schenck and a photo copy of a section of Thornwall's works... Apparently - and you can correct me if I'm wrong- Thornwall (and Dabney) taught that discipline, especially excommunication, can only be perfomed on communicating members. (This implied by the [i:a59e3dbde6]ex[/i:a59e3dbde6] in excommunication.)
I disagree. If someone comes to a given church, they are implicitly putting themselved under the authority of that church. Thus they either &quot;play by the house rules&quot; or face the consequences. Furthermore, we need to recall the element of discipline that is designed to put a little fear into the congregation. 
Anyway, sorry to ramble... but I'd say that I would discipline anybody who comes into my assembly, regardless of whether or not they are officially communicating members, if their actions are either bringing discredit upon the church or if they are threatening the unity or peace or doctrine of my congregation.
Thus I'd say that in practical terms I wouldn't be worried about &quot;who's in&quot; and &quot;who's out.&quot; If you attend you're fair game. 
:flamethrow:


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 29, 2004)

[quote:0a8b2799af][i:0a8b2799af]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:0a8b2799af]
I was reading Schenck and a photo copy of a section of Thornwall's works... Apparently - and you can correct me if I'm wrong- Thornwall (and Dabney) taught that discipline, especially excommunication, can only be perfomed on communicating members. (This implied by the [i:0a8b2799af]ex[/i:0a8b2799af] in excommunication.)
I disagree. If someone comes to a given church, they are implicitly putting themselved under the authority of that church. Thus they either &quot;play by the house rules&quot; or face the consequences. Furthermore, we need to recall the element of discipline that is designed to put a little fear into the congregation. 
Anyway, sorry to ramble... but I'd say that I would discipline anybody who comes into my assembly, regardless of whether or not they are officially communicating members, if their actions are either bringing discredit upon the church or if they are threatening the unity or peace or doctrine of my congregation.
Thus I'd say that in practical terms I wouldn't be worried about &quot;who's in&quot; and &quot;who's out.&quot; If you attend you're fair game. 
:flamethrow: [/quote:0a8b2799af]

Ben,

You can't excommunicate someone who does not have the right to commune in the first place. It is like stripping a European of American citizenship. Also, you have no authority over a non-member. You can exercise discipline only over one who has submitted to authority. Otherwise they can simply ignore you with impunity.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 29, 2004)

Today, it so happens, I went for a long drive with my son. We talked. One of the things that we talked about was a contradiction that he noticed in the local secular high school. There had been a fire call, with firetrucks pulling up, and everyone evacuated, classes distrupted, and even cancelled, and all kinds of talk going on. Someone had let off a smoke bomb in a stairwell. They have video surveilance, but they called for witnesses to come forward anyways. He wanted to know why the authorities would think that students would consent to ratting on their fellow classmates? 

So we went into the ideas involved in discipline. I asked if the students were really out for the good of fellow students if they aided and abetted felons, even though these were their friends? Does this help their society in any way? Or are they only trying to preserve their own skins? I asked if the church membership would also have the same social expectation of not ratting on a fellow member, expecially if it was already a social norm? 

You see, the problems that I personally face have to do with this. What is ideally preached from the pulpit is not really acceptable behaviour in the social fabric of a church. It may not be Biblically correct to rejoice in your own prowess in getting some truck driver fired for messing up your lawn, but just try to draw the elders' attention to it when they nominate him for the office of elder for the upcoming elections. Wow, you'll get you head taken off for thinking of doing such a socially unacceptable thing. Discipline in our culture is not that easy, not even in the churches. 

It is more usual than is comfortable in our time that the elders make a judgment based on their assessment of a person's character without carefully investigating the facts. It is easier to pass off a personality dispute than it is a matter of real discipline. But this puts the elders in a real bind, though they often do not see it. They too often see fit to let alone those whom they should make the object of their oversight, and they step on one of Christ's little ones because he has let his temper go, or because he has argued with a superior. They don't ask why.

What I am saying is that we have let far too much go for us to just suddenly take up the cause for discipline as we always should have. We just can't do that without first setting up goals and standards for social behaviour that is truly for the mutual society of God-fearing people. Not a facade, but a real duty and longing for a society in which we can hope for the mutual edification and fellowship that we need. If we are not even practicing in our churches what we preach, we certainly cannot expect a godless society around us to seek for a social good in a godly way. 

My son would be afraid to report it if he had any knowledge of the incident, because he knows that there will be blood to pay. And now he knows also that he can not expect to impove that social expectation if he too is unwilling to work for the social good. If we as churches do not have the fortitude to do what we ought to, not because we want to see our brother in trouble, but because we love him and we long to live trustingly with him, and also see him aspire to and attain to the office of elder with dignity and grace, but rather fain to do our part for him because it will land us in the social disgrace of being the rat, then we are not ready to do what we need to to discipline as we ought.

For all the orthodoxy that we preach, I have yet to see a church in my immediate area that really acts like a church in such matters. It may be that I am being hard on all of us, but I really miss having elders who truly are for the spiritual good of the person, and are willing to do what needs to be done, rather than to try to smooth things over. 

Thankfully, there are still good and spiritual elders around. And they are not that far away. But they do have a very hard time of it. For the most part the fact that their own denominations do not always foster the level of orthodox teaching and practice that is required is too much of an impediment to their callings. If the social structure is not there in the main, how can you uphold it in the part? How can a local church maintain a higher expectation than the Presbytery, or the denomination? It is indeed difficult; and we do not appreciate the burden they bear for the sake of our souls. We have to do our part willingly, and sacrificially, just like they are willing to do for us. It is, after all, for all our good to do it. It is not for our good to sit idly by when duty and conscience calls us. 

I'm not saying, Kevin, that you are barking up the wrong tree. Indeed, I agree with you. But it is a far bigger thing to accomplish than it seems. I am, in fact, totally in favour of your suggestion. But it is a task that will take far more than just making distinctions between who's in the Covenant and who's not.:hobbyhorse:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:4c28db6cc0][i:4c28db6cc0]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:4c28db6cc0]
I was reading Schenck and a photo copy of a section of Thornwall's works... Apparently - and you can correct me if I'm wrong- Thornwall (and Dabney) taught that discipline, especially excommunication, can only be perfomed on communicating members. (This implied by the [i:4c28db6cc0]ex[/i:4c28db6cc0] in excommunication.)
I disagree. [/quote:4c28db6cc0]

You are right that Thornwell argued that only communicant members could be excommunicated. But it's not so simple as you portrayed. The reasons he gives for that are actually pretty interesting. I providentially read this writing of his today 
Thornwell argued that since non-communicant members (or baptized but had not made profession of faith) are already barred from the &quot;inner&quot; sanctuary of the Church, there was nothing you could really take away from them. In other words, they are already out, so you can't kick them out because they were never in. Thornwell considered baptized children to be unbelievers until they proved otherwise and that the sign of baptism was essential a mark of the inheritance they would receive once they were brought to faith. Since they were not saved anyway, there's no point in excommunicating them.
Another argument he puts forth, with more merit I think, is the fact that if you are going to excommunicant a baptized member who hasn't made profession of faith, what sin would you excommunicate him for? Say you wished to excommunicate a non-communicte member for adultery. Does that mean you assumed the rest of his unbelieving life was ok until that point? By excommunicating him for a particular heinous sin, you're basically saying that his life of hypocrasy until then was ok. You've just endorsed the fact that non-communicant members can remain in the church and remain unbelieving, so long as they don't do anything &quot;really bad.&quot; 

Now, I'm not sure I agree with him yet. But he does give some food for thought. You may find his arguments in Vol 4 of his works (pg. 337-375).


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:b9806a6643][i:b9806a6643]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:b9806a6643]
Ben,

You can't excommunicate someone who does not have the right to commune in the first place. It is like stripping a European of American citizenship. Also, you have no authority over a non-member. You can exercise discipline only over one who has submitted to authority. Otherwise they can simply ignore you with impunity. [/quote:b9806a6643]

I guess when I say &quot;excommunicate&quot; I mean that I would essentially tell them that they aren't welcome anymore. Also, as I mentioned above, by regularly attending a church one is implicitly putting themselves under the authority of the church. You are right that the US government can't remove US citizenship from those who do not have it... but it is also true that (for example) a German citizen who chooses to live in the US - even though he does not become a US citizen formally- submits himself to the laws and authority of the US government by virtue of the fact that he chooses to live here.
I guess I find it repugnant to think that there can be a whole class of people in our churches who are untouchable... This poses a real danger to the health of the rest of the congregation if this person's sin goes unchecked.
:slurp:


----------

