"Voluntary" Church discipline?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lifelong_sinner

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm a member of a PCA church, and i recently committed some sins, and promptly confessed those sins to 2 of my pastors. I received an email 1 week later asking for me to attend the elders next sessions and "voluntarily" come under church discipline. I guess my 2 questions are, 1. are repentant church members subject to church discipline still? and 2. if i said no to this meeting, what would possibly be an outcome of not "voluntarily" doing this?
 
It would depend on the nature of the offense. My guess is if discipline still follows after a Confession, a time of "bearing fruit meet for repentance" would be nesessary to resume the use of the sacraments, i.e, the Lord's supper for instance, and partaking of fellowship with the saints. Saying no might result in censors up until excommunication, and we wouldn't want that for you.
 
Hello Raul,

I would say the same as Mike said – it depends on the kind of sins. Some would require ongoing contact / conversation with the pastor(s); there are mild forms of church discipline, with restoration to a stable and godly life the goal – not at all punishment.

To resign so as to avoid discipline would leave an awful mark on your history! A new church would want to know your history, and converse with your former pastors.

Go to the meeting appointed with your elders is my advice – you may be surprised at the wisdom and care involved.
 
lifelong_sinner said:
Is resignation of membership possible??
Click to expand...
Your essentially asking for excommunication.

I would just meet with the session. If your repentant, it's a good sign that a meeting is set up to help you, not the opposite. Voluntary can also mean cooperation, which is what any good session requires of its members. It's part of the vows we take before becoming members of a reformed church.
 
I don’t know all the details, nor should I, nor do I desire to. From a cursory glance, not sure I like the email means (vs. face to face or verbal request), but -outside of that- this seems like a very good and caring thing brought to you by those who have the rule over you. It is, perhaps, that they’ve -in times past- had to deal with sheep who kick, and fight back, even against humble entreaty, so maybe that’s why they’re framing it the way they are. My encouragement to you is to have confidence under whose care the LORD has placed you, and humbly to proceed with their request(s). What is the “worst” that could happen? That they proceed in an unlawful intensity of disciplinary action? Then you may appeal to the Presbytery. But why ought any begin to proceed with such doubtful thoughts of their session? Begin with charitable thoughts, presuming they have a great care for the honor of Christ, the health of the local chapter of Zion at which you’re covenanting, and for your continued growth. :2cents:
 
It sounds like this is a way of restoration. No harm in hearing them out. One could even say that's the expected thing. And if you tender your resignation (if that is possible), it will be HUGE red flags for other churches in the area.
 
Sometimes we Christians (myself included) want and really prefer the notion that I can:

1) Confess my sin, and​
2) ....​

that's it. I confessed it. That's all, right? Forgiven, forgotten. Let's move on.

Yet, as has already been mentioned, if the goal is full restoration and genuine spiritual care resulting in long term recovery, and help in abandoning sin and its harms and side effects--the work of the church's ministry in true shepherding is not comparable to the priest in the confessional dispensing penance like pharmacy prescriptions. Nor it is kindness to simply affirm the penitent sinner every week thereafter, showing him there is nothing to fear, no clouds about him so far as the church cares.

An analogy to a doctor's health-care provision is apt. If he's been called in to make a diagnosis and offer a cure, and he sees the patient bandaged and has swallowed a pain tablet, he may pat the fellow on the back and send him out a seeming success story. But suppose the doc knows the man should have more and ongoing care? Sure, the patient might get well without any follow up care, could have no setbacks, could avoid strains and new injury--though the doctor makes no sign that he would like to monitor the progress of healing, and even improvement.

But equally, or maybe even more likely, the patient will struggle even as he thinks he's got all under control. No one is monitoring him, but informally and from afar. His mom calls him a week later, a month later still, to see if he seems OK. How is he doing, in fact? Only he knows for sure, and he could be kidding himself or just ignorant.

As a doctor owes his patient a certain ongoing interest and sharing his expertise, even more does the church's ministry owe its members oversight especially when they have fallen and only recently arisen. The fact this ministry mentioned in the OP has asked for a "voluntary" cooperation from one of its injured members should be anything but a barrier to that cooperation.

Perhaps I am the kind of person who would tell an attentive physician "Buzz off, doc." And perhaps doctors and elders can be overbearing and pushy in offering their services. But what is the evidence for so concluding? Only that such care was being offered? It seems a bit of peremptory rejection of the attentions that from this perspective seem presented by serious and loving providers.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Sometimes we Christians (myself included) want and really prefer the notion that I can:

1) Confess my sin, and​
2) ....​

that's it. I confessed it. That's all, right? Forgiven, forgotten. Let's move on.

Yet, as has already been mentioned, if the goal is full restoration and genuine spiritual care resulting in long term recovery, and help in abandoning sin and its harms and side effects--the work of the church's ministry in true shepherding is not comparable to the priest in the confessional dispensing penance like pharmacy prescriptions. Nor it is kindness to simply affirm the penitent sinner every week thereafter, showing him there is nothing to fear, no clouds about him so far as the church cares.

An analogy to a doctor's health-care provision is apt. If he's been called in to make a diagnosis and offer a cure, and he sees the patient bandaged and has swallowed a pain tablet, he may pat the fellow on the back and send him out a seeming success story. But suppose the doc knows the man should have more and ongoing care? Sure, the patient might get well without any follow up care, could have no setbacks, could avoid strains and new injury--though the doctor makes no sign that he would like to monitor the progress of healing, and even improvement.

But equally, or maybe even more likely, the patient will struggle even as he thinks he's got all under control. No one is monitoring him, but informally and from afar. His mom calls him a week later, a month later still, to see if he seems OK. How is he doing, in fact? Only he knows for sure, and he could be kidding himself or just ignorant.

As a doctor owes his patient a certain ongoing interest and sharing his expertise, even more does the church's ministry owe its members oversight especially when they have fallen and only recently arisen. The fact this ministry mentioned in the OP has asked for a "voluntary" cooperation from one of its injured members should be anything but a barrier to that cooperation.

Perhaps I am the kind of person who would tell an attentive physician "Buzz off, doc." And perhaps doctors and elders can be overbearing and pushy in offering their services. But what is the evidence for so concluding? Only that such care was being offered? It seems a bit of peremptory rejection of the attentions that from this perspective seem presented by serious and loving providers.
Click to expand...
Great words, Pastor. Thank you! How little we know ourselves! Let the righteous smite me, and I shall count it a kindness!
 
I'd take a refusal to meet with the session as a sign that there really isn't any repentance. Since it's a voluntary invite instead of process, I'd think there'd be no discipline for declining the invitation, but the response should be to institute formal process.

Put me in the 'don't need or want details' crowd, but nothing I've read here suggests that they are doing anything other than being good shepherds at this point.
 
Don't seek to concede your membership from the body of Christ, unless you have good reason to believe that you are not a true member of the body.

If you are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ, continue to seek to be united to his visible body, here on earth, as well as continue to seek true repentance and restoration. This is how he has called us to walk.

Remember, his yoke is not burdensome. Lord willing, his undersheperds will reflect his tender mercy, even when they have to rebuke for the sake of purity.
 
I hold the view that church discipline is for impenitent sinners, not for penitent sinners. That is why we believe that impenitent offenders ought to be barred from sealing ordinances until they manifest their repentance - not six months later. Still, your elders may simply be asking you to meet with them so that they can be of greater help to you. What would be the harm in meeting with them? It is also possible that they are using the word discipline (if they even used it at all) in a broad sense, and not in the sense of a censure.
 
In addition to the good advice already given, I would say that since you went to them and confessed your sins - you have already embarked on "voluntary discipline" - you have confessed sin, I would assume you have described some struggle, and I would also assume that you did so with mind to not returning to the old way of living - and thus you should probably view this programme suggested as being part of their God-given duty to assist you in your desires.

I would also think that depending on the sins, and the reality of the struggle, that perhaps it may be in the interests of maintaining the Lord's Table that they might request you not pariticpate until "fruits of repentance" are clear, though I'd also say that attendance at the Lord's Supper should not long be prohibted since attendance there-to would be a means by which spiritual progress will be made.

Discipline should never be thought about purely in the sense of censure, but always in the sense of a constructive process of disciplship.
 
@lifelong_sinner

None of us here know what you confessed to the two pastors. They obviously think it is significant enough to have you come and speak to the session about it. The specific wording of their request is critical here.

Why would you think of not going? What prompts you to bring up the resignation of your membership? Are you repentant for what you confessed?

It sounds as if they wish the session to hear from you in your own words and to make some judgment with respect to matters, perhaps issuing an admonition (something short of suspension from the table). Again, why would you even consider not going? It feels as if something's going on here about which we know nothing because your willingness to go to the pastors and then reluctance to come to the session is puzzling.

Peace,
Alan
 
lifelong_sinner said:
I'm a member of a PCA church, and i recently committed some sins, and promptly confessed those sins to 2 of my pastors. I received an email 1 week later asking for me to attend the elders next sessions and "voluntarily" come under church discipline. I guess my 2 questions are, 1. are repentant church members subject to church discipline still? and 2. if i said no to this meeting, what would possibly be an outcome of not "voluntarily" doing this?
Click to expand...
Raul,

"They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace." - Jer 6:14

Praise the Lord that you have a session that's willing to shepherd your soul and not heal your wounds slightly. Discipline is a way of shepherding those who have fallen into grievous sins, and willing submission to discipline is the penitent sinner's path to recovery. Your pastors and elders are your spiritual physicians. To refuse their care would be like disregarding the prescription of a doctor of physical maladies, with this difference: a physician seeks the good of a body that will soon die; a pastor seeks the good of the soul that will never die. Your spiritual and eternal well-being is at stake. It would be foolish and reckless to refuse the care that's being offered you.

If you refuse church discipline, you are guilty of the sin of contumacy, which is a rejection of the rule of Christ in his Church. The only path forward for a session with a contumacious church member, i.e., one who refuses to acknowledge and submit to the spiritual authority of the officers Christ has given to his church, is excommunication. If someone refuses to be shepherded, there's simply nothing else that can be done. Please don't refuse Christ in this matter.
 
It sounds as if your session is seeking to apply BCO 38-1:

38-1. When any person shall come forward and make his offense known to
the court, a full statement of the facts shall be recorded and judgment rendered
without process. In handling a confession of guilt, it is essential that the person
intends to confess and permit the court to render judgment without process.
Statements made by him in the presence of the court must not be taken as a
basis of a judgment without process except by his consent. In the event a
confession is intended, a written Confession (i.e., a sufficient summary of the
facts, the person’s specific confession, and any expression or evidence of
repentance) must be approved by the accused, and by the court, before the
court proceeds to a judgment, and the co-signed document shall be appended
to the minutes (regular or executive session). No other information may be
presented without written consent from the accused and the court, and this
prohibition includes individuals, prosecutors, committees, and commissions.
A censured person has the right to appeal (BCO 42). The person has the right
to be assisted by counsel at any point, in accord with the stipulations of BCO 32-19.
Click to expand...
This is right and proper, not vindictive.
 
Thanks to everyone who has responded. A lot of you are asking questions that pertain directly to this issue, but in the interest of keeping this as quiet as i can, since i dont know if there are other members of my church on here, i wont actually comment much till after the meeting. I do plan on going to the session, and meeting with the elders. thats the easy part. I will update this thread as things happen. Your words have helped though, truly.
 
Hello all. Just a quick update. I hate long updates. So i became a member of my church in April of this year, and they normally like to have all the new members from Jan through Aug come up at one time in the fall to be introduced to the congregation. So i get an email Monday, telling me that they want to do this on Aug 27. roughly 2 weeks. The admin asst asked if i had planned on being there for this. Amazed at the terrible timing, i replied that no, i would not be there, and that as a result of last week's decision that i would like to have my name removed from the roster. They replied to me today that they had forwarded my request to the elders for their next session meeting. Their next meeting is the same as when i'm to appear. I've had a good week to think about all of this, and it only took 3 months as a member before i got asked to go before the elders. 3 months. I still plan on going before the elders, but clearly i cant remain a member. I simply no longer trust my leadership to not bring up church discipline whenever i mess up, which is a LOT. I will continue to support them, but being a member is simply not an option for me any longer.
 
lifelong_sinner said:
I've had a good week to think about all of this, and it only took 3 months as a member before i got asked to go before the elders. 3 months. I still plan on going before the elders, but clearly i cant remain a member
Click to expand...

The following remarks are made on the basis of your words, not necessarily in any way connected with the ability of the eldership as such.....I'm puzzled.

You seem to see that fact that you are being brought before the elders in "3 months" as blameworthy. But it only took three months because you went to them did it not. You would not be going before them unless you yourself had voluntarily asked for their attention. If you hadn't confessed sins to them then you would not be in this position - how is their action after only three months blameworthy or disappointing, as it seems to be to you? It could have been 2 weeks or 5 years - the instigating point of their actions began when you went to them, not before or after.

I'm not seeing why you can't remain a member. Do you only want to be a member of a church that doesn't pay any attention to their members' sins? Unless the discipline they impart is harsh and onerous why would you not want to remain in membership in this church?
 
Hebrews 12:6–13 (KJV 1900):

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;

13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
 
@lifelong_sinner, if I might make a suggestion. I don't sense that anybody here wishes to tell you what you can or can't do. But, you are asking us to give you advice while you give a partial story. I fail to see how this can have a productive outcome.

It's perfectly understandable that you don't want to divulge all the details in a public forum. I certainly don't expect, or even really want, that; and I rather imagine I'm not alone there. But you can't expect helpful advice from us in return.

There is a pastoral concerns forum to which only elders may respond. It's "semi-public" in that most members can view it but it's not visible to those who aren't signed in. You would get the best advice the board has to offer by taking your concern there.

I believe you can also DM a board administrator or mod and ask for your concern to be brought before some of our board pastors, and that would afford you the most privacy. Of course, you need to know that no one here is acting in an official capacity or in any way as a supplement or replacement for your own church authorities.

Lastly, I'll echo a concern others have raised here. You seem to be bristling at the idea of church discipline, which raises questions as to whether you are really repentant or whether you were looking to your confession as a "get out of jail free" card. If you went to your local police station and confessed that you were the "mystery shoplifter" that has been troubling the town for the last 3 years, do you think they would thank you for your honesty and bid you on your merry way? A humble and contrite Christian willingly confesses sin and then submits to the appropriate censures in gratitude. Stop hemming and hawing. Whatever your sin was, you felt compelled to bring it to your session's attention and they felt compelled to take action about it. Embrace the opportunity for the Spirit to work correction in your life and see the process through.
 
Raul,
Do you realize that in Presbyterian lingo "discipline" often means any kind of care that includes accountability or involves the elders? How those elders proceed going forward will depend on what you have done and what your attitude is toward their care, of course. But you are not necessarily being punished just because you are being "disciplined." You are being cared for, we would hope.

The "discipline" could be nothing more than they've decided they want to get to know you better and will ask how they can help keep you accountable, or something like that. Again, this depends on your particular situation, and maybe you know more that you aren't telling, but a caring talk with the elders would be a pretty normal place for Presbyterian discipline to start when you already show signs of being repentant. The fact that they expect you to be introduced as a member later this month suggests to me that they don't think they'll be imposing the harshest forms of discipline.

If I went to a pastor at a good Presbyterian church, feeling a need to confess some sin, I would expect him to initiate some sort of "discipline" if he cares about me. You've come to him for guidance and care, so he's getting the elders involved in your life. This is what good Presbyterians do. It's a caring thing! Elders are not the bad guys (usually). Being asked to meet with them for discipline is not a scolding nor a punishment. It's helpful accountability. You indirectly asked for accountability when you went to your pastor to confess, and they are responding in a timely manner. Most often, this shows they care about their flock. Why do you think it shows they are overbearing?

Don't run from membership just because it includes elders who actually get involved in the muck of your life when you go to them and confess. Any meaningful membership will include this, so be glad for it.
 
Hello all, after reading more of your comments, i see where my issue is. I started this thread because of my disagreement over how this problem is being handled. And Littlefaith is correct... while only giving partial information about this, i cant expect anyone to give the best response when too many questions still remain. so, let me be more specific about my big issue with this.

I committed a serious sin, and it bothered me greatly. I think i got 3 hrs of sleep that night, and i promptly emailed my head pastor. He was out of town, but he said "get with the asst pastor" i said ok, great i will. So i emailed him, we met the next afternoon. So i explained the problem, and he asked me what i was looking for from him since i seemed to understand what i had done. I told him, a good scolding, and some ideas on how to make sure this never happened again. It was a great conversation. And quite honestly, it should have ended there. the problem was solved, steps had been taken to make sure it didnt happen again. no one else needed to know.

A few weeks later, my head pastor was back in town, and he wanted to meet up. I said hey yea, great idea. Him and I have met many times over the last 3 yrs, building a good friendship, so i agreed to meet with him and tell him the story. We met, discusssed it, he did tell me that the asst pastor had given him the 2 min version, so he wasnt completely caught off guard. So i told him what me and the asst pastor had brought up as far as ideas to make sure it never happened again. He liked that too. everything was going well. Then exactly 1 week after that, i get an email from him, explaining what is standard practice for situations like this. This goes back to the original post in this thread about voluntary church discipline.

Here is some of what the original email said; "Thank you for meeting the other day. As i mentioned briefly when we met this past week, it is good that God has convicted your heart regarding your sins and it is good for you to confess and turn from that pathway. It only leads to destruction. Our standard practice is to ask members who come and voluntarily confess their sin to come to a meeting with our elders and confess to them. I won't mislead you, that would be the beginnning of church discipline where the elders will deliberate the best thing for you regarding your membership in the church. They may admonish you with words of warning or they may ask you to refrain from taking the Lord's Supper as a visible picture of the danger that you are in. Most importantly, you would let yourself be "known" to them and they would pray for you and work to hold you accountable so that you might turn from your sin and cling to Jesus.This is all voluntary."

this is where my disagreement comes in. This is something i feel that should have been handled quietly and discreetly. there is NO need to tell more people about this. The problem has been fixed, steps have been taken to ensure it cant happen again. there is no need for voluntary church discipline. This would be different if i hadn't confessed my sins to them, and another church member told the leadership about it. That, i get. But i came to them myself, quickly and honestly. And once decided that we could handle this, thats it. no need to keep telling others. Now, am i wrong in my thinking?
 
lifelong_sinner said:
Hello all, after reading more of your comments, i see where my issue is. I started this thread because of my disagreement over how this problem is being handled. And Littlefaith is correct... while only giving partial information about this, i cant expect anyone to give the best response when too many questions still remain. so, let me be more specific about my big issue with this.

I committed a serious sin, and it bothered me greatly. I think i got 3 hrs of sleep that night, and i promptly emailed my head pastor. He was out of town, but he said "get with the asst pastor" i said ok, great i will. So i emailed him, we met the next afternoon. So i explained the problem, and he asked me what i was looking for from him since i seemed to understand what i had done. I told him, a good scolding, and some ideas on how to make sure this never happened again. It was a great conversation. And quite honestly, it should have ended there. the problem was solved, steps had been taken to make sure it didnt happen again. no one else needed to know.

A few weeks later, my head pastor was back in town, and he wanted to meet up. I said hey yea, great idea. Him and I have met many times over the last 3 yrs, building a good friendship, so i agreed to meet with him and tell him the story. We met, discusssed it, he did tell me that the asst pastor had given him the 2 min version, so he wasnt completely caught off guard. So i told him what me and the asst pastor had brought up as far as ideas to make sure it never happened again. He liked that too. everything was going well. Then exactly 1 week after that, i get an email from him, explaining what is standard practice for situations like this. This goes back to the original post in this thread about voluntary church discipline.

Here is some of what the original email said; "Thank you for meeting the other day. As i mentioned briefly when we met this past week, it is good that God has convicted your heart regarding your sins and it is good for you to confess and turn from that pathway. It only leads to destruction. Our standard practice is to ask members who come and voluntarily confess their sin to come to a meeting with our elders and confess to them. I won't mislead you, that would be the beginnning of church discipline where the elders will deliberate the best thing for you regarding your membership in the church. They may admonish you with words of warning or they may ask you to refrain from taking the Lord's Supper as a visible picture of the danger that you are in. Most importantly, you would let yourself be "known" to them and they would pray for you and work to hold you accountable so that you might turn from your sin and cling to Jesus.This is all voluntary."

this is where my disagreement comes in. This is something i feel that should have been handled quietly and discreetly. there is NO need to tell more people about this. The problem has been fixed, steps have been taken to ensure it cant happen again. there is no need for voluntary church discipline. This would be different if i hadn't confessed my sins to them, and another church member told the leadership about it. That, i get. But i came to them myself, quickly and honestly. And once decided that we could handle this, thats it. no need to keep telling others. Now, am i wrong in my thinking?
Click to expand...

Howdy friend. Thanks for the context. I’d like to answer your question with a question.

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is upon unprofitable for you.” - Hebrews 13:17 (KJV)

With this verse in mind, here’s my question:

What do you think “obey[ing] them that have the rule over you” looks like in this situation?

I’m asking this with all sincerity, because I speak from experience when I say that it is easy to submit to our elders when things are going our way, they’re making decisions we’re agreeable to, etc. It’s a lot harder when we have different ideas about what to do or what the right way forward looks like. Situations where there’s disagreement or where we don’t see eye to eye can really make this a challenge! Yet it is written:

“Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” - Philippians 2:3 (KJV)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see what you're saying. I think it's still pretty difficult for anyone to give you good advice without knowing what the sin is. I think depending on the sin, there may be different paths to help overcome it.

With that being said, I think I would feel pretty uneasy about the situation. At our church we have a shepherd who is assigned to our family, and at least about 20 other elders in the church. If there was some sort of issue in my life, I don't know if I would feel comfortable going before every single elder and confessing that sin, when most of them are not involved in my life personally at all.

But then again, I really don't know your specific situation.
 
@lifelong_sinner, it sounds to me like there is a desire for you to have some control over your own discipline process. Let me point to some specific indicators:

"And quite honestly, it should have ended there. the problem was solved, steps had been taken to make sure it didnt happen again. no one else needed to know." - This is not your decision to make. With all due respect, the sinner forfeits the right to manage his own discipline.

"This is something i feel that should have been handled quietly and discreetly. there is NO need to tell more people about this. The problem has been fixed, steps have been taken to ensure it cant happen again. there is no need for voluntary church discipline. This would be different if i hadn't confessed my sins to them, and another church member told the leadership about it. That, i get. But i came to them myself, quickly and honestly. And once decided that we could handle this, thats it. no need to keep telling others. Now, am i wrong in my thinking?" - Everything about this paragraph breathes an air of someone who knows exactly how he wants his sin handled. You have reversed the roles of sinner and elder here.

I don't know what your sin was. I don't want to know. Please think twice before posting it publicly. I can't say whether your session's reaction is appropriate or commensurate or not.

But this I can say - if discipline is to your liking and comfort, then it's not really discipline. Quietly telling someone then trying to brush it under the rug is not real repentance. Accountability, and from multiple people, is a GOOD thing. If I were in your shoes, desiring real repentance, I would want people to know, and I would want people to see Christ's work in delivering me from sin.

I came to Christ ten years ago and lived in all sorts of sin myself. I've been through a great deal of confession and voluntary humility and in all of my struggles my complaint has been that people are too quick to take the repentance at face value and then never follow up. Nobody wants to invest the time or emotional energy into building bonds of accountability to safeguard young or struggling believers. You should be running towards that type of accountability, not away from it - else you leave open the question of whether, deep in your heart of hearts, you really want to be free of your sin. I speak from experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Church Discipline
Replies
18
Views
2K
Zach
Zach
P
  • Locked
Church Discipline
Replies
13
Views
4K
TimV
TimV
J
  • Locked
Church Discipline
Replies
3
Views
2K
OPC'n
OPC'n
JLB
Church discipline (averted)
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
JLB
JLB
Y
  • Locked
Facebook and Church Discipline
Replies
15
Views
4K
Webservant
Webservant
Back
Top