# Church Discipline



## dasuweng (Sep 17, 2021)

*One of the young ladies in the church has just found out that she is pregnant by one of the young men in the church. Both have finished their studies, are working, and are about 25 years old and while they were in a relationship with each other, they were not married. This would involve both counselling and church discipline. How would you, as pastor, deal with this situation?*


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 17, 2021)

How you deal with it would rest, in large part, on whether or not they are repentant. Church discipline is for unrepentant sinners.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## dasuweng (Sep 17, 2021)

Assuming they have repented, what should the church leadership advise to do next?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 17, 2021)

Since it was/will be a public sin, the congregation should be informed, also of their repentance. Then the elders should assure them of God's forgiveness in Christ and talk about measures to keep this sin from happening again in the future. They might want to get married, but it should not be insisted upon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 17, 2021)

Guido's Brother said:


> They might want to get married, but it should not be insisted upon.


I think it should be insisted upon, unless their parents won't permit it.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Providing for the physical and emotional wellbeing of his child and of the woman he has made much less eligible for marriage seems to me like a relatively obvious component of what it means to repent of this sin.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Sep 17, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> I think it should be insisted upon, unless their parents won't permit it.
> Deuteronomy 22:28-29
> 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
> 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
> Providing for the physical and emotional wellbeing of his child and of the woman he has made much less eligible for marriage seems to me like a relatively obvious component of what it means to repent of this sin.


Definitely get married!

That child needs a father, and the biological one and the mother liked each other well enough to sleep together. Seems to me the decision has been made.

I think the way forward here is pretty obvious, even apart from the explicit Scripture Charles provides here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 17, 2021)

May I point out:
Even in Israel--under circumstances that are different from those we know experientially, whose laws if they are preserved for us in their Constitution are useful to us only so far as the general equity in them demands--it was not an *absolute* rule that the damsel should marry the man who seduced her.

Consider the parallel passage in Ex.22, esp. *v17*:
16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her _to be_ his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.​
My point is not to avoid the reality that a child needs two parents, or that there isn't reasonable encouragement for the two parents to marry and create stability out of their confusion. Those are valid points.

But by initially running to an OT law to extract a _prescription, _when that law is dead ("expired"), when this is a situation requiring _wisdom, _when the laws of ancient Israel's Constitution themselves require comparison and wisdom in application--all this short circuits the path to finding the best answer to the plea of the original post.

The fact is that there could be many good reasons why this girl should not marry this man. Her parents could be dead set against it, and to pressure them to adopt a particular course solely because there was a law in ancient Israel that seems to speak to the situation (of which a full accounting shows more than was first presented) is foolishness.

The male youth could be someone who is now generally worthless as a provider and never will be what he ought, and the girl's father could be seeing the present reality and the future trajectory (not infallibly). The likelihood of the right suitor coming along later in today's world, who isn't only interested in a virgin (as preferred in ancient Israel, and perhaps still so now but to a lesser degree), is one reason why the parents might hesitate in taking on a son-in-law who has thus far proved dishonorable. Is he willing to marry for the right reasons, or because he too is being pressured to take on the responsibility?

Repentance may look like it includes going to the altar; but not necessarily. This is a situation that calls for looking carefully at many factors, and not rushing for a "solution" that ends up creating a worse condition than a pregnancy and child out-of-wedlock.

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 17, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> May I point out:
> Even in Israel--under circumstances that are different from those we know experientially, whose laws if they are preserved for us in their Constitution are useful to us only so far as the general equity in them demands--it was not an *absolute* rule that the damsel should marry the man who seduced her.
> 
> Consider the parallel passage in Ex.22, esp. *v17*:
> ...


I made the qualification "unless the parents won't allow it", which is the same qualification we find in the law.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 17, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> I made the qualification "unless the parents won't allow it", which is the same qualification we find in the law.


I noted the qualifier in your post, but the qualifier is not found anywhere in Dt.22, the text you quoted. Thus the _OT Law _that was referenced (and any accompanying authority stated or assumed by it) is qualified to the ignorant by nothing more than human opinion; until/unless additional facts are put into evidence.

As it was, your comment was followed by Andrew's, who made four statements that build on your previous post, irrespective of the offered qualifier (again, unsourced in the text).
1) "definitely marry," N.B. the imperative mood​2) "the decision is made"​3) "the way forward is obvious"​4) "the Scripture is explicit," referencing only the Deut. passage cited​
Therefore, I wasn't just responding to one post, but two; and addressing matters that were left unclear or laced with false conclusions--all the worse for thinking it was well-grounded in _sola scriptura _authority. I know Andrew, think of him as a friend, and don't want him (or anyone else) to be fogged with error.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Sep 17, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I noted the qualifier in your post, but the qualifier is not found anywhere in Dt.22, the text you quoted. Thus the _OT Law _that was referenced (and any accompanying authority stated or assumed by it) is qualified to the ignorant by nothing more than human opinion; until/unless additional facts are put into evidence.
> 
> As it was, your comment was followed by Andrew's, who made four statements that build on your previous post, irrespective of the offered qualifier (again, unsourced in the text).
> 1) "definitely marry," N.B. the imperative mood​2) "the decision is made"​3) "the way forward is obvious"​4) "the Scripture is explicit," referencing only the Deut. passage cited​
> Therefore, I wasn't just responding to one post, but two; and addressing matters that were left unclear or laced with false conclusions--all the worse for thinking it was well-grounded in _sola scriptura _authority. I know Andrew, think of him as a friend, and don't want him (or anyone else) to be fogged with error.


Thanks for your response, and for pushing me to think further, Bruce!

Very good points, and they cover matters i hadn't considered. 

Now do you think the specific circumstances here (both in their mid-20s, working, in church, and previously in a relationship) might make the practical argument that they should marry a bit stronger? Because that was kind of at the back of my mind as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Sep 17, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> I think it should be insisted upon, unless their parents won't permit it.


A potentially dangerous lack of grace shown there. At this point we know only only two facts. 1) The couple was in a relationship. 2) the girl is pregnant. It is assumed that the child is the progeny of the man in question. (50 years ago, that would probably have been an irrebutable presumption. Now eveidence is available to prove or disprove. Perhaps it is not an assumption, but a scientific fact. It was presented as fact. I haven't seen the DNA results.)

What we don't know from the limited information given. 1) Was the act consentual. Probably, but those facts aren't before us. And without that information, you sound all to willing to perhaps deliver a young woman into the hands of a rapist with your unqualified comment. 2) Is he the actual father. He shouldn't agree to anything without the test results. 

Marriage is likely the ideal result. But I'm not a Theonomist.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 17, 2021)

Edward said:


> A potentially dangerous lack of grace shown there. At this point we know only only two facts. 1) The couple was in a relationship. 2) the girl is pregnant. It is assumed that the child is the progeny of the man in question. (50 years ago, that would probably have been an irrebutable presumption. Now eveidence is available to prove or disprove. Perhaps it is not an assumption, but a scientific fact. It was presented as fact. I haven't seen the DNA results.)
> 
> What we don't know from the limited information given. 1) Was the act consentual. Probably, but those facts aren't before us. And without that information, you sound all to willing to perhaps deliver a young woman into the hands of a rapist with your unqualified comment. 2) Is he the actual father. He shouldn't agree to anything without the test results.
> 
> Marriage is likely the ideal result. But I'm not a Theonomist.


It's hard to imagine the OP would be written the way it is if a rape were involved, since that would be a pretty important detail. I don't feel that I have shown a lack of grace by taking the OP at face value without accounting for every possible hypothetical. Yes, you are correct, one should not have to marry their rapist.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 18, 2021)

Guido's Brother said:


> How you deal with it would rest, in large part, on whether or not they are repentant. Church discipline is for unrepentant sinners.


Does not their sin assume a serious lapse in their repentance? Do you not think time is needed to assess the genuineness of their professed repentance? At a minimum I would suspend them from the Table for a season so that they might demonstrate to the congregation the sincerity of their repentance.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 18, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Does not their sin assume a serious lapse in their repentance? Do you not think time is needed to assess the genuineness of their professed repentance? At a minimum I would suspend them from the Table for a season so that they might demonstrate to the congregation the sincerity of their repentance.


What should they be demonstrating if they have repented? Unless they are refusing to repent I don’t get why the table would be withheld. Don’t repent, no table? Repent , no table?

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 18, 2021)

ZackF said:


> What should they be demonstrating if they have repented?


The fruits worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 18, 2021)

ZackF said:


> What should they be demonstrating if they have repented? Unless they are refusing to repent I don’t get why the table would be withheld. Don’t repent, no table? Repent , no table?


At this point all anyone can know is that their sin came to light because she is now pregnant. Their sin has been found out and they are professing themselves to be penitent. That's good, but talk is cheap. If they are truly humbled for their sin, they will not chaff at being asked for time to demonstrate the seriousness and sincerity of their repentance. What's more, it would afford them an opportunity to soberly examine themselves to see weather they be in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Sep 18, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> At this point all anyone can know is that their sin came to light because she is now pregnant. Their sin has been found out and they are professing themselves to be penitent. That's good, but talk is cheap. If they are truly humbled for their sin, they will not chaff at being asked for time to demonstrate the seriousness and sincerity of their repentance. What's more, it would afford them an opportunity to soberly examine themselves to see weather they be in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5).


You make some good points. I’m sure the circumstances leading to and at repentance matter and also the time until the next Lords supper.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C4MERON (Sep 19, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> At this point all anyone can know is that their sin came to light because she is now pregnant. Their sin has been found out and they are professing themselves to be penitent. That's good, but talk is cheap. If they are truly humbled for their sin, they will not chaff at being asked for time to demonstrate the seriousness and sincerity of their repentance. What's more, it would afford them an opportunity to soberly examine themselves to see weather they be in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5).



At which point, however, may they be deemed to have appeared ‘truly repentant’?..
How much fruit would have to be exhibited for someone to say ‘ah, yes, now you are fit for the table, we have witnessed sufficient fruit’?..
Ought it not be sufficient the minister and elders to examine them and follow up with support and pastoral care? If we bar someone from the table does this not mean they are on the path for church discipline? and surely they only meet with requirement for that if they are stiff-necked about it? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zach (Sep 19, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Does not their sin assume a serious lapse in their repentance? Do you not think time is needed to assess the genuineness of their professed repentance? At a minimum I would suspend them from the Table for a season so that they might demonstrate to the congregation the sincerity of their repentance.


While I understand and appreciate that perspective, if they are indeed repentant, as they profess, is not the grace given at our Lord's Table what they need the most in order to bear fruit in keeping with repentance? I understand why Pastors and Elders would arrive at a different conclusion and want to see the fruits of repentance demonstrated before they are admitted to the Lord's Table again, but I think it is at least an equally appropriate response to call them to the Lord's Table in their repentance and, if the fruit demonstrates otherwise, to only suspend them later.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------

