NOTE: This article is the edited transcript of a sermon delivered by the author at Secrets Unsealed in the summer of 2017. Those interested in viewing the video may do so at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5XNlYICeWQ&list=PLIWJyuxBfZ7h70QNc0IdfejrA7Gd_WiWh&index=6&t=14s
Church discipline is not a popular subject in the Seventh-day Adventist Church today. More than likely, it isn’t a popular subject in a great many Christian communities of our time. But when we study the Bible, and understand the ultimate spiritual worldview on which the doctrinal pronouncements and moral imperatives of the Bible are based, it becomes clear that the process we call church discipline, whether at the local congregational level or beyond, is not only a Biblical process, but one in which—rightly conducted—the love, the mercy, and the full redemptive purpose of the gospel are demonstrated.
To begin with, the word discipline comes from the same root as disciple. Whether we speak of discipline in the home—the parental discipline of children—or discipline in the church, the action taken is designed to be redemptive, not punitive. Even if the conclusion of a church disciplinary process involves removal from church employment and/or membership on the part of those disciplined, the process is still intended to be one of redemption. Consider what the apostle Paul says about what to do with those who disregard the message of his epistles:
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (II Thess. 3:14-15).
Notice how even when it is necessary to part company with someone because of doctrinal, ecclesiastical, or moral unfaithfulness, such a one is not to be considered an adversary, but as a brother to be redeemed.
Basic Principles
But when we speak of a Biblical theology of church discipline, it is important to review some very basic Biblical principles. I call these the three Biblical realities, which serve as the three foundation stones of Biblical church discipline:
1. The reality and accessibility of eternal truth
2. The reality of righteousness and sin
3. The reality of a heaven to win and a hell to shun
Without these three realities, church discipline has no meaning. Notice how I speak here of both the reality and the accessibility of eternal truth. There are those who insist that even if eternal truth exists, human beings can’t know for sure what it is, and so—according to this line of thought—to speak of right and wrong, truth and error, is an exercise in spiritual arrogance.
But not only do the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Bible assume the existence of eternal, objective truth, so does the Bible story itself. It would make no sense for God or His inspired messengers, in either the Old or the New Testament, to speak the way they do about right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice, kindness and cruelty, if truth and error were merely subjective, entirely personal, and individually unique, as many theological “progressives” would have us believe.
God through Isaiah admonished Israel to “cease to do evil” and “learn to do well” (Isa. 1:16). Through Jeremiah He declared, “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (Jer. 6:16). From verses like these it is clear that not only is God setting before His people an objective standard of right and wrong; it is also clear that He expects them to understand what He is talking about, and to direct their faith and lives accordingly. It is for this reason that Ellen White makes the following statement regarding the ability of finite beings to understand infinite truths:
That which in the councils of heaven the Father and the Son deemed essential for the salvation of man, was defined from eternity by infinite truths which finite beings cannot fail to comprehend [##1|Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 408.##].
What is supremely ironic is that if the so-called theological “progressives” among us are in fact correct in their subjective, culturally nuanced, experientially ambiguous definition of truth, the moral witness of the church on any subject is completely lost. If truth is indeed relative—as many insist—to time, to place, and to circumstance, then neither personal nor social piety can be correctly understood, much less articulated or upheld, as a standard for the church or for others.
It’s both sad and amusing at times to hear certain folks in the church talk against what they consider to be a “creedal” mentality when it comes to doctrinal, lifestyle, or ecclesiastical issues. At the bottom line, not even the most theologically liberal Christian, Adventist or otherwise, is entirely non-creedal. If the word “creed” is used to describe a set of beliefs or standards of conduct to which contradiction and disobedience is disallowed in the faith community, no professing Christian could be found who doesn’t believe in some sort of a creed. Some may recall an article by the present writer on this website a number of years ago, titled, “The Red Herring of Creedalism” [2]. I recommend it to all our readers.
Even the most theologically liberal Adventist of my acquaintance would consider embezzlement, racism, economic injustice, spousal abuse, and child molestation to be wrong, and to thus merit church discipline. But if the written Word is held to be the Christian’s supreme rule of faith and practice (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11), similar discipline must apply to those who stray from any Bible doctrine or standard of conduct (e.g. the Sabbath, the investigative judgment, sexuality issues, gender authority). The uncomfortable fact is that the ambiguous, relativistic view of religious and moral truth used by so-called theological progressives, is generally only applied by these persons to those doctrinal and moral standards they seek to marginalize. What such persons don’t seem to realize is that if truth of any kind is seen as a mere cultural product, no doctrinal or moral tenet—personal or social, fashionable or unfashionable—is safe.
God’s Transcendent Standard
Both the imperative and the transcendence of sound doctrine are affirmed throughout Holy Scripture. Through the prophet Hosea God declared, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6). Jesus declared that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), that “if ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31). In His parting address to His followers He declared:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16).
The New Testament apostles said the same thing. Paul wrote the following in His epistles:
But thou we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8).
God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (II Thess. 2:13).
Writing to Timothy, he stated:
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee (I Tim. 4:16).
We can see why Paul instructed Timothy earlier, in this same epistle, to not tolerate the teaching of doctrines contrary to those taught by the apostles:
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in fact, so do (I Tim. 1:3-4).
We earlier saw the following passage from Paul’s writings regarding acceptance of God’s Word through the witness of Paul’s epistles:
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (II Thess. 3:14-15).
The New Testament likewise rules out any selective acceptance of divine revelation through God or His chosen messengers.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all (James 2:10).
The fact that Christians are to live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), forbids the believer to embrace certain Bible principles which happen to conform to the cultural or intellectual fashions of the time, while discarding those Biblical teachings which cut against the grain of contemporary culture or intellectual thought. “Every word” includes, for example, both Paul’s declaration that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28), as well as his statement: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God” (I Cor. 11:3).
You can’t read verses like the above and accept the conclusion that doctrinal pluralism was something the early apostles tolerated in the early church. The reason ecclesiastical discipline matters, and why it is imperative, is because—as the above passages bear witness—what we believe and how we live are in fact salvational.
This is why godly parents administer discipline in the home, even if children might at times be upset about it. (I certainly wouldn’t be tracing these lines if I hadn’t myself experienced a fair amount of discipline while growing up!) And it is for this reason that the body of Christ administers corporate discipline in the church, just as faithful fathers and mothers administer discipline in the home. The eternal destiny of men and women depends on divinely-directed, divinely-empowered faithfulness to the Holy Word of God, whether that faithfulness is corporate or individual.
Biblical Church Discipline
The first examples of church discipline that we find in Scripture took place in the context of the Old Testament Israelite theocracy. Obviously, because the covenant community is no longer the national state that it was in Old Testament times, the methods of discipline we often read about during the Old Testament period are not used—indeed, cannot be used—in the church today.
Only when God takes a direct and supernatural hand in the affairs of the faith community can the sort of punishments we read about in Old Testament Israel rightly take place. But the principle of firmness in addressing wrongdoing is still valid. Though the methods of punishment are not the same in our time, Ellen White uses the word theocracy to describe the church and its authority under God:
We are sacredly denominated by God, and are under His theocracy [##3|White, Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 109.##].
When leaders in ancient times failed to exercise godly firmness in dealing with apostasy and sin, spiritual calamity was the inevitable result. One such example is the case of Aaron during the golden calf incident. Listen to the words of Ellen White as she describes this lapse in leadership:
Such a crisis demanded a man of firmness, decision, and unflinching courage; one who held the honor of God above popular favor, personal safety, or life itself. But the present leader of Israel was not of this character. Aaron feebly remonstrated with the people, but his wavering and timidity at the critical moment only rendered them the more determined [##4|——Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 316.##].
May every leader in contemporary Adventism take heed to this warning! Feeble remonstrance doesn’t work. Wavering and timidity only makes the problem worse. On the next page she goes on to say:
A religion that permits men, while observing the rites of worship, to devote themselves to selfish or sensual gratification, is as pleasing to the multitudes now as in the days of Israel. And there are still pliant Aarons, who, while holding positions of authority in the church, will yield to the desires of the unconsecrated, and thus encourage them in sin [##5]|——Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 317.##.
We see this same permissive spirit toward evil in the experience of Eli and his wicked sons Hophni and Phinehas. The servant of the Lord says the following about Eli’s experience, and the lessons it holds for God’s people today:
God held Eli, as a priest and judge of Israel, accountable for the moral and religious standing of his people, and in a special sense for the character of his sons. He should first have attempted to restrain evil by mild measures; but if these did not avail, he should have subdued the wrong by the severest means. He incurred the Lord’s displeasure by not reproving sin and executing justice upon the sinner. He could not be depended upon to keep Israel pure. Those who have too little courage to reprove wrong, or who through indolence or lack of interest make no earnest effort to purify the family or the church of God, are held accountable for the evil that may result from their neglect of duty. We are just as responsible for evils that we might have checked in others by exercise of parental or pastoral authority as if the acts had been our own [##6|——Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 578.##].
Matthew 18 and Corporate Church Discipline
Most of us are familiar with the formula for conflict resolution and church discipline outlined by the Lord Jesus in the 18th chapter of Matthew:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee two or more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, 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 (Matt. 18:15-17).
Many are doubtless familiar with the fact that this counsel on the part of our Lord has at times been misused. Some have tried to make it appear that public wrongdoing, the public teaching of error, or the public facilitation of rebellion against the body of Christ, should not be rebuked in public unless you’ve gone to the wrongdoer directly and privately confronted him. But we need to make a clear distinction between the necessary rebuke of public wrongdoing and the process of corporate church discipline. Listen to what Ellen White said about someone who claimed that she (Ellen White) hadn’t followed the counsel of Matthew 18 in a particular situation:
Her husband seemed to feel unreconciled to my bringing out her faults before the church, and stated that if Sister White had followed the directions of our Lord in Matt. 18:15-17, he should not have felt hurt. [Matt. 18:15-17 quoted].
My husband then stated that he should understand that these words of our Lord had reference to cases of personal trespass, and could not be applied to the case of this sister. She had not trespassed against Sister White. But that which had been reproved publicly, was public wrongs which threatened the prosperity of the church and the cause. Here, said my husband, is a text applicable to the case: I Tim. 5:20: “Then that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear” [##7|——Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 15.##].
But public rebuke is not necessarily in the same category as corporate church discipline. Ellen White is clear that when the process of church discipline is followed, the steps to be taken are in fact those outlined in the 18th chapter of Matthew.
In dealing with erring church members, God’s people are to carefully follow the instruction given by the Saviour in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew. . . .
No church officer should advise, no committee should recommend, nor should any church vote, that the name of a wrongdoer should be removed from the church books, until the instruction given by Christ has been faithfully followed [##8|——Gospel Workers, pp. 498,501.## ].
And when in fact this instruction has been faithfully followed, the inspired pen tells us that it is the duty of the church to remove those who stubbornly cling to their errors:
The names of those who sin and refuse to repent should not be retained on the church books, lest the saints be held accountable for their evil deeds. Those who pursue a course of transgression should be visited and labored with, and if they then refuse to repent, they should be separated from church fellowship, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Word of God.
Those who refuse to hear the admonitions and warnings given by God’s faithful messengers are not to be retained in the church. They are to be disfellowshiped; for they will be as Achan in the camp of Israel—deceived and deceiving.
Who, after reading the record of Achan’s sin and punishment, can think it according to the will of God that those who do wickedly, refusing to repent, are to be retained in the church? To retain them would be an insult to the God of heaven [##9|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1096.##].
Church Discipline in the Pauline Writings
The apostle Paul speaks of the necessity of godly discipline in his first epistle to the Corinthians, regarding the issue of sexual immorality:
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators;
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, . . .
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person (I Cor. 5:9-13).
One can hardly question the relevance of this counsel for the church today. Again we note the following, also from the writings of Paul:
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (II Thess. 3:14-15).
In the following Ellen White statement we again recognize how redemptive the disciplinary process is intended to be, even for those removed from the fellowship of the church:
If the erring one repents and submits to Christ’s discipline, he is to be given another trial. And even if he does not repent, even if he stands outside the church, God’s servants still have a work to do for him. They are to seek earnestly to win him to repentance. And however aggravated may have been his offense, if he yields to the striving of the Holy Spirit, and by confessing and forsaking of sin gives evidence of repentance, he is to be forgiven and welcomed to the fold again [##10|——Gospel Workers, p. 501.##].
Biblical and Papal Discipline Contrasted
At different times in the history of modern Adventism, including now, some have confused the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy model of church discipline with the ecclesiastical intolerance practiced at different times throughout Christian history. Sooner or later, whenever an individual or institution within the church is held accountable for doctrinal or moral unfaithfulness, some will claim that the church is employing the methods of the papacy, the New England Puritans, or perhaps others.
But what we need to consider is the fundamental difference between the Biblical theology of church discipline and the methods used by persecuting powers in the professed Christian fold. In short, there is an eternity of difference between recantation and repentance.
The following statement by a modern historian is most instructive regarding the pagan philosophy that lay behind the attempt to force the early Christians to compromise their faith under the Roman Empire. British historian Stephen Williams, in his insightful biography of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, writes as follows of the pagan rationale for the persecution of the Christian church:
To a modern liberal it might seem (as it seemed to John Stuart Mill over atheist jurors) that legally compelling early Christians to sacrifice was not just coercive, but absurd; for of what possible value could their offering be, if in their hearts they repudiated it? But much of this chapter has tried to show that Roman religious conceptions were not at all like this. What mattered to gods and men was not a person’s belief but its expression in acts, not his private silent vows but his public oaths and commitments. Jupiter saw your actions, not your thoughts [##11|Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, Inc, 1985), p. 169.##].
One immediately thinks of a Bible verse which aptly contrasts the God of Scripture with both the expectations of mortals and the general pagan worldview:
Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart (I Sam. 16:7).
The fact is that any time humans seek to create a theocracy which is not—as in Old Testament Israel—presided over by God Himself, surface compliance (not heart-based repentance) will be the result. That was one egregious problem—among many—with the medieval papacy. The Reformers and others who protested against the medieval church weren’t asked to repent. Instead, they were asked to recant.
Repentance has to do with the heart. And Biblical church discipline is all about repentance, which is first and foremost a matter of the heart. Recantation, by contrast, is all about surface compliance. That’s what the Roman Empire, the medieval papacy, Puritan New England, and similar experiments in man-made theocracy represent. That is not, however, what Biblical church discipline is all about, including—if necessary—the removal of individuals from church employment or fellowship, or the removal of structural entities from the corporate body of Christ.
Biblical church discipline is all about redemption. The persecution of dissenters by the medieval papacy, and by certain of the magisterial Protestants also, was about enforcing compliance, not effecting redemption. Again, from Ellen White’s writings:
And even if he [the erring one] does not repent, even if he stands outside the church, God’s servants still have a work to do for him. They are to seek earnestly to win him to repentance [##12|White, Gospel Workers, p. 501.##].
Thus, anyone who claims the Biblical process of removing erring members from church employment or fellowship is an exercise in papal intolerance, is simply mistaken. Biblical church discipline is about change from the inside out. Religious persecution, by contrast, is about surface compliance.
The Example of Nehemiah
But the fact that church discipline does at times require a parting of the ways is as unmistakable a truth of the Sacred Story as it is a heart-rending one. More than one such episode took place during the period of Israel’s history following their return from Babylonian captivity. Perhaps the most dramatic of these occurred during the reformation led by Nehemiah after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt.
We remember the story. Sabbath-breaking, social injustice, the neglect of the tithing system, intermarriage with the heathen—all of these were taking their toll on the faithfulness of re-established Israel. Upon returning to Jerusalem following an absence of a few years, Nehemiah found these departures from integrity rampant among leaders and people alike. This godly leader was thus constrained to pursue some very vigorous reforms, some of which proved exceedingly painful.
One of these reforms involved the breakup of marriages between Israelites and those outside the faith community. As it turned out, one of the worst offenders on this count was the high priest himself, who had permitted his grandson to marry the daughter of Sanballat, the Samaritan governor who had so strongly opposed the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls. Because of this grievous sin, Nehemiah says of this priest: “Therefore I chased him from me” (Neh. 13:28).
He goes on to say, regarding these apostates:
Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites.
Thus cleansed I them from all strangers, and appointed the words of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business (Neh. 13:29-30).
Ellen White describes the agony this effort inflicted on Nehemiah. Those leaders in contemporary Adventism presently seeking revival and reformation in the church can likely relate to this experience:
How much anguish of soul this needed severity cost the faithful worker for God the judgment alone will reveal. There was a constant struggle with opposing elements, and only by fasting, humiliation, and prayer was advancement made [##13|——Prophets and Kings, p. 674.##].
Now consider what happened next, because of Nehemiah’s reforms:
Many who had married idolaters chose to go with them into exile, and these, with those who had been expelled from the congregation, joined the Samaritans. Hither some who had occupied high positions in the work of God found their way and after a time cast in their lot fully with them. Desiring to strengthen this alliance, the Samaritans promised to adopt more fully the Jewish faith and customs, and the apostates, determined to outdo their former brethren, erected a temple on Mount Gerizim in opposition to the house of God at Jerusalem. Their religion continued to be a mixture of Judaism and heathenism, and their claim to be the people of God was the source of schism, emulation, and enmity between the two nations, from generation to generation [##14|——Prophets and Kings, pp. 674-675.##].
Could this happen to God’s people today, because of the courageous course of our leaders in upholding the Bible-based unity of the church? Most assuredly it is possible. And what is perhaps most instructive about the inspired recounting of this experience is that Ellen White never says Nehemiah could have avoided this division in the fellowship of God’s people if he had only been less severe! Even though Nehemiah’s actions were the source of an alienation that lasted for centuries, all the way into New Testament times, the inspired pen finds no fault with Nehemiah for the actions he took.
Quite to the contrary, the servant of the Lord—in the very next paragraph—declares that men with Nehemiah’s steely courage are essential to the work of God today. Listen to the articulated balance of courage and compassion in the words of God’s prophet, with which we close this article:
In the work of reform to be carried forward today, there is need of men who, like Ezra and Nehemiah, will not palliate or excuse sin, nor shrink from vindicating the honor of God. Those upon whom rests the burden of this work will not hold their peace when wrong is done, neither will they cover evil with a cloak of false charity. They will remember that God is no respecter of persons, and that severity to a few may prove mercy to many. They will remember also that in the one who rebukes evil the spirit of Christ should ever be revealed [##15|——Prophets and Kings, p. 675.##].
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 408.
2. Kevin Paulson, “The Red Herring of Creedalism,” ADvindicate, Sept. 16, 2018 https://advindicate.com/articles/2018/9/16/the-red-herring-of-creedalism
3. White, Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 109.
4. ----Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 316.
5. Ibid, p. 317.
6. Ibid, p. 578.
7. ----Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 15.
8. ----Gospel Workers, pp. 498,501.
9. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1096.
10. ----Gospel Workers, p. 501.
11. Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen Inc, 1985), p. 169.
12. White, Gospel Workers, p. 501.
13. ----Prophets and Kings, p. 674.
14. Ibid, pp. 674-675.
15. Ibid, p. 675.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan