The
church should never lose sight of its coveted objective in the exercise
of excisive discipline, which is to correct and reclaim the excluded
person.
Therefore, it is the obligation of the entire membership of the church
to be exceedingly careful in its relationship to the excluded person,
so
as to do nothing that would impair the effectiveness of the discipline,
and thereby cause the church to come short of its cherished goal (Romans
16:17; James 5:20).
Excisive
discipline may seem at first to some to be unduly rigid or severe, but
it is not so, for there is no element of cruelty in it, and it is not
without
pardoning flexibility. When the U.S. Marines drums one out of the Corp,
he is stripped of all identification with the Corp, his buttons and
insignias
are torn from his uniform, and he is sent on his way; never to be
restored
to the Corp. Sister branches of the military would not for the briefest
moment consider receiving the dishonorably discharged Corpsman into
their
branch of the military. But the excisive discipline of the church is
not
that absolute, but has an amazing remedial power in it, whereby the
discharged
person may be joyfully restored to membership in the church.
However,
there is a growing and prevailing tendency toward disrespect among the
Lord’s churches for the disciplinary authority of sister churches. The
autonomy and independence of the local church should never be infringed
upon by any external power, and we need to remember that church
independence
does not include the right for a church to ignore the disciplinary
authority
of churches of like faith and order. Nevertheless, some churches and
pastors
in defense of receiving excluded people say: “No church or preacher can
tell our church whom we may receive or not receive into our
membership.”
This haughty attitude and conduct has been the means of sundering long
standing friendships, and has gone far in negating the authority of
local
churches over their membership.
No
two New Testament churches are totally free of practical or doctrinal
variance,
and in some cases the nature of the variance is such, that so as to
avoid
rivalry, fellowship between the varying churches must be and will be
accordingly
circumscribed. But New Testament churches should never be competitors
one
with another, and should rejoice at the betterment of conditions in
every
sister church. Howbeit, and to our shame, this is not always the case.
It
is possible for a church to err in its practice of excisive discipline,
but it is not likely. Moreover, no sister church is better qualified to
judge in the matter than the church that administered the discipline.
When
a child is disciplined by its Mother, it does not run to the house of
its
Aunt, and say: “My Mother gave me a whipping, and I want to live at
your
house.” If such an instance occurred the Aunt would tell the child,
“You
go straight home, and apologize to your Mother.” The Aunt’s motive in
rebuking
the child is deep concern for the welfare of the child, and love and
respect
for her sister. However, it appears in our time that this kind of honor
between sister churches is disgracefully on the wane.
After
the offending brother has become obdurate and disregards the twice
repeated
effort toward reconciliation by the offended brother, Christ said: “Tell
it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let
him
be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:15-17).
In these words Christ was speaking by way of anticipation to all of His
churches, and while the words “heathen” and “publican”
are
not synonymous with reprobation, they do mean one with whom there can
be
no church fellowship (Romans 16:17, II Thessalonians 3:14).
Ethics
has never reached a higher plain than that which is found in the
government
of New Testament Baptist churches, and never more so than in the matter
of church discipline. This is why excisive discipline is the last
measure
to be used by the church in its effort to reconcile an erring member.
When
a member is scripturally excluded from a New Testament Baptist church,
it is divinely incumbent upon all sister churches to honor the action
of
the disciplining church, for Christ speaking to His churches, said:
“Whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye
shall
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).
This is an awesome truth, but it does not say, there is absolutely no
way
an excluded person can be taken into the membership of a church of like
faith and order. But it does emphatically teach that ALL New Testament
churches should be exceedingly careful so as not to receive people into
their membership whose exclusion is “bound” in heaven. GOD FORBID!
No
man can ever extricate himself from his responsibility to God, and no
bona
fide church member can ever bring his responsibility to the Lord’s
church
to a conclusion. Exclusion of a person from the membership of a New
Testament
Baptist church does not terminate the excluded person’s responsibility
to the excluding church. On the contrary, exclusion draws attention to
his shortcomings, and highlights his responsibility and duty toward the
amendment of his error and his need of reconciliation to the church.
While
the excluded person is not, during the time of his exclusion, under any
further disciplinary authority of the church, he is yet subject of the
authority of the Head of the church, Jesus Christ, and will be dealt
with
by the unerring government of God. Adam’s exclusion from the garden of
paradise did not absolve or free him of his responsibility to God. The
excluded person is yet a subject of Divine authority, and his primary
duty
is to repent of his offense against the church and seek restoration of
membership in the church.
(The
Baptist Herald - October, 1992)
