God desires that his people be holy. This desire is true in the Old Testament and New Testament, as well as in the present hour. Salvation is the work of God to make people holy by faith in Jesus Christ so that they might know and enjoy God and his works forever. The cross demonstrates the unyielding requirement of holiness for those who will walk with God. Had God been able to relate to mankind or save us without making us holy, the cross could have — and should have —been avoided.
Unholiness is a plague in the modern church. This loss of holiness undermines her authority and credibility to speak against sin. The virtual absence of church discipline is undeniable proof of the loss of holiness in the church. The only other conclusion is that people do not sin as much as they did in the early church and every other era of church history; therefore, there is no need for church discipline. I seriously doubt that anyone would be willing to use the sinlessness of the church to defend the lack of discipline. John MacArthur says,
It is not surprising, therefore, that public discipline for sin is rare in the church today. Where there is little genuine desire for purity there will also be little desire to deal with impurity. The misinterpreted and misapplied statement of Jesus that we should not judge lest we be judged (Matt 7:1) has been used to justify the tolerance of every sort of sin and false teaching. The ideas that every person’s privacy is essential to be protected and that each is responsible only to himself have engulfed much of the church. Under the guise of false love and spurious humility that refuse to hold others to account, many Christians are as dedicated as some unbelievers to the unbiblical notion of “live and let live.” The church, however, is not nearly so careful not to gossip about someone’s sinning as it is not to confront it and call for it to stop.[1]
Matthew 18:15–20 is the first passage on church discipline in the New Testament. Also, it is important to be reminded that Jesus only mentioned the word church in two places. The first was in reference to the universal church and the second to the local church (Matt 16:18; 18:15–20). Mathew 18 is the only time Jesus used the word church specifically referencing the local church. It should at least capture our attention that, in this one instance, he chose to speak on church discipline. Matthew 18:15–20 says,
And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst.
Here, Jesus lays out the process of dealing with a wayward brother or sister in need of repentance. Matthew 18 is about how believers are to relate to each other. We are compared to children in the first six verses, which demonstrates our weaknesses, needs, and dependence on God. The flow of the chapter is as follows: everyone enters the kingdom as a child (verses 1–4); those within the kingdom must treat each other as children (verses 5–9). We are to be cared for as children (verses 10–14), disciplined as children (verses 15–20), and forgiven as children (verses 21–35). Jesus prescribes four steps for the discipline process: private reproof, semi-private reproof, public reproof, and public removal. There is also a promise of God’s approval and presence.
The first step is a private reproof. “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother” (Matt 18:15). Before looking at the meaning and application, consideration needs to be given to a variant within this verse. The New International Version reads, “If your brother sins against you,” and the King James Version reads, “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee.” The difference between these two translations and the New American Standard is that they include “against you (thee)” at the end of the statement. The difference in translations is that some good manuscripts include “against you,” indicating that it is a part of the original, and some exclude it, indicating that it is a later addition by a copyist.
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament rates the variant with a C, which signifies “that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text contains the superior reading.”[2] This means that the more likely reading excludes the words “against you.” In light of this, we cannot be sure which way it should read. However, with regard to interpretation, it does not make a great deal of difference. If “against you” is included, then it is clearly prescribing how the offended individual has the responsibility to approach the offender and reprove him. This interpretation fits well with Peter’s question, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” (Matt 18:21).
If the “against you” is not authentic, then it is a general prescription for the church to handle a sinning brother, which neither necessitates nor prohibits the offended one from going to the offender in the one-on-one meeting. Even if the “against you” is there, it is still prescriptive for the church regarding how to deal with a sinning brother because the sin of a brother in a community affects everyone. It may affect others directly, like someone stealing from an individual, or it may affect others indirectly, like someone living a life that reproaches a local church (1 Cor 5).
Therefore, either rendering of this verse results in basically the same teaching. That is, how does a church handle a sinning brother? If the sin is against one person, that person needs to go first to the sinning brother. If the offense was not against an individual, but he is the one person privy to the situation, that person should go first because resolving the issue with the least amount of people involved is of immeasurable importance. The clear teaching of the passage is to win the brother rather than unnecessarily expose and embarrass him. Consequently, a private meeting is the place to begin.
It is common for someone to refuse to go to a particular church that allows a member who lives an immoral life, practices shady business dealings, or exemplifies a hypocritical life to remain a member. Of course, any such charges must be corroborated. Nevertheless, the number of irrefutable situations of this sort is abysmal. Concerning the seriousness of the harm caused by hypocrisy, James S. Spiegel states, “Next to the problem of evil, this is the most commonly cited reason for rejecting the Christian faith.”[3]
The word sin means “to miss the mark, to err, be mistaken, to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor, to do or go wrong, to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin.”[4] Reprove, eleycho, means “to show people their sins and summon them to repentance, either privately (Matt 18:15) or congregationally (1 Tim 5:20).”[5] When the meanings of these words are considered, the sense of the verse is obvious. In true community, there is to be great concern about a brother or sister who is walking in sin, and the implication is that the sin is unconfessed. The words go and reprove are both commands in the original. Thus, this is not an option and is not restricted to leaders or certain ones in the body of Christ. To fail to comply is nothing less than disobedience to the Lord.
Jesus says, “If he listens,” meaning he responds appropriately, “You have won your brother” (Matt 18:15). In other words, you have helped him come back to walking in fellowship with the Father. Many are afraid to approach a brother in sin because they fear pushing him away or losing him. Jesus’ words make it apparent that he is already lost (meaning in sin and not necessarily salvifically), and going to him only potentiates winning him, and not going leaves him lost to the work of God. Another more prevalent reason is that we are afraid of what he or others will think of us. When this is the case, it is confirmation that a person loves himself more than his wayward brother. While all of us would agree that it is difficult to approach a brother who is in sin, it is indeed serious when we find it more difficult than directly disobeying our Lord Jesus Christ.
Restoration of the fellowship is unattainable until the church is willing to obey the command to go. Who is to go? Most naturally, it would be the one directly offended by the sinning brother. If no one has been directly offended, then the one who is privy to the situation would be the appropriate one to go. If more than one is privy to the situation, then wisdom would dictate who should go. This person might be a friend, someone the brother respects, or a leader of the church. Consideration should be given to who would have the best chance of winning the brother. The others can pray for the meeting.
It has been my experience that more than one knows about the problem before the first meeting. The reason others know is due in part to a few things. First, people sometimes talk to others before they receive guidelines regarding how to follow church discipline. Second is the nature of community. Living in a close community means it is common for more than one to detect a problem. I am not saying it is right that these things happen, but merely noting they often do.
Third, the human tendency is not to ask for help until the problem is out of control, which results in people knowing before the sin is dealt with. Fourth, the human inclination is to hope that things will get better on their own, and thus, prayer is offered for the wayward brother, but confrontation is put off as long as possible. Often, it is put off too long.
By the time it is no longer plausible to postpone a personal encounter, the issue is often public knowledge. While praying and hoping the situation will correct itself can create the problem of waiting too long, the other danger is to create a church full of “Mr. Cleans” who live to pounce on the spots of impurity in their brothers’ and sisters’ lives. I have seen this happen, and it is ugly indeed.
We have had to exercise discipline upon some who became loveless legalists in detecting sin in others’ lives but oblivious to their own sin. I would recommend that some waiting is often wise since many temporary spiritual weaknesses are taken care of through the ministering of other disciplines, such as prayer, preaching, and fellowship. As long as the waiting is bathed in prayer, immersed in love, and involves a willingness to approach, if necessary, it may be wise to wait. I would rather see a church be overly cautious than spiral into legalism. This waiting is not meant to afford an excuse to churches that are simply unwilling to reprove a brother under the guise of “praying for him,” for that is nothing but disobedience and self-love.
When the person goes, it is to reprove the brother. He must tell the brother of his sin and warn of the potential damage to the brother, others, and the body of Christ. He must also call for repentance. The entire process must be bathed in love for the brother. The erring brother must be assured that forgiveness and restoration are waiting at the door of repentance. Frequently, church discipline is viewed as unloving by the world and immature or carnal Christians. What is really unloving is to leave one of God’s children in sin. God’s love always seeks to make the object of his love holy (1 Pet 1:15).
There are several things of importance to note here. First, discipline is not the responsibility of the leaders alone. It is the responsibility of every believer in the community. More often than not, these private meetings would not involve the pastor or a leader of the church if they were done soon enough. Second, a prerequisite for this type of meeting is that the one going to reprove is set apart unto God, though he does not have to be perfect. If not, he will have little desire to do such a difficult thing as approach a fellow believer about his sin, and if he did, it would merely add hypocrisy to hypocrisy.
Third, the term brother is used of Christians, denoting our familial relationship. Consequently, it includes female believers in everything being said—sorry, ladies, this is equally your responsibility. Fourth, the term brother is a term of affection. It bespeaks of a family member and a deep love for the people of God. This person is not an enemy but a sibling.
In practicing church discipline for over four decades, I have learned that some basics need to be understood and addressed. First, there are usually some who have such a high view of their own spirituality, along with a total lack of compassion, that they believe they are God’s messengers of reproof. As Gabriel is the angelic messenger of the coming Messiah, they are the not-so-angelic couriers of castigation. They love reproving others. Care must be taken that these do not become the church’s celestial censures simply because it does not bother them to go to a sinning brother.
That is, in fact, a valuable caveat. If it does not bother someone to go and confront a sinning brother, something is dangerously wrong. The church indeed needs people who are willing to go, but being willing to go and being supercharged at the idea of going are two entirely different spirits. Just because they are willing does not mean they are the best ones to go unless they are the only ones who know about the situation. We must guard against creating a situation where everyone is going to everyone over every petty thing.
Some people seem to thrive on finding fault with others, especially when it comes to how they were treated or mistreated by them. These are the ones who are still personally unconvinced that Copernicus was right. They believe all the evidence, at least the important corroboration, still demonstrates that the world revolves around them. It will not take long to figure out who they are because they have an uncanny ability to share with you their incalculable importance to the kingdom, albeit in an ostensibly humble way.
A second issue, which arises in the practical application of church discipline, concerns what kind of offense constitutes the need to go to a brother. When I am asked, I usually counsel people to handle personal hurts in one of two ways. If the hurt is minor and will not affect either the offender or the offended’s life, handle it with prayer. Give it to the Lord and move on. So many of these things happen in the course of serving Christ that this needs to be an everyday part of our Christian lives. If not, many very active Christians will spend countless hours daily dealing with minor infractions.
This is not intended to be contrary to the teaching of the Lord but in the spirit of that teaching (1 Cor 13:6; 1 Pet 4:8; Prov 10:12). I believe the Lord clearly intended bigger things than a failure to smile or say hello unless, of course, that would cause a Christian to stumble. If the offense cannot be handled sufficiently by prayer, then the brother must be approached. If the offended needs to talk, he should talk to the offender or with someone to get counsel on how to resolve the hurt. Gossip has no place in the life of a believer. I would make an exception for those who come to their pastor or another spiritual leader seeking biblical guidance concerning how to handle the situation, which is entirely different. We must allow this because we know that not every Christian knows how to deal with everything biblically. That is the whole idea of discipleship.
A third concern, which arises in the real life of church discipline, is whether it is ever appropriate for more than one person to go to the sinning brother on the first visit. In many situations in which I have been involved, several people in the church already know some of the details. Maybe this should not be, and they should be dealt with sooner, but this is what happens. When this is the case, it is still preferable, at times, to send one person. But since the individual or the rumor mill has already violated the one-on-one level of privacy, the one-on-one prescription is not obligatory, although it is still preferred. The primary purpose of the one-on-one or two or three meeting, which has been thwarted by widespread knowledge of the sin, is winning a brother or sister with as little publicity about their sin as possible.
Paul’s handling of the sinning brother in 1 Corinthians 5 is an example of forgoing the private meeting because of the public nature of the sin. Therefore, while it is often still best to send one, some circumstances make one-on-one meetings, once confidentiality has been broken, either unnecessary or, at times, even unwise. For example, if those going might be endangered by people in the neighborhood or by the one being confronted becoming abusive or violent. This danger could be heightened by a criminal record or suspected drug use or drug dealing.
Another situation that could require two is when the sin is known and there is a high probability that the wayward brother will vilify or make false accusations about the one who comes. Also, if it is a woman, I recommend sending one or two women; if that is not possible, two men. Or, if it is not appropriate for a woman to make the initial contact, a man. Again, sending more than one on the first visit is not intended to abrogate Jesus’ words. The change is made only if the first level of privacy has already been violated, and other circumstances, such as those mentioned, seem to make it the wisest course.
When we look at the other major passages regarding church discipline, it is clear that this understanding was practiced by Paul. Seldom is a church discipline case a textbook case. Further, it seems safe to assume that not all the wayward whom we will deal with are actually brothers or sisters. This reality is especially true in light of the modern degradation of membership.
A fourth situation is when distance or law precludes you from going personally. This situation can happen when a member is imprisoned in another state or is in a state institution where visitors are not allowed. In such cases, we have sent a letter or sought to talk with him by phone. Letters and phone calls are not appropriate unless a face-to-face meeting is virtually impossible. When letters are used, they must be of a nature that is commensurate with seeking repentance. Correspondence must include clear confirmation of the church’s willingness to work with the wayward brother, regardless of what they have done.
It cannot be the kind of letter that pastors often receive, which is intended to take them to task rather than resolve a conflict or receive feedback from a brother. The intent is obvious before the letter is even read since the writer lives in the same city and could have come and met face to face. Instead, they opt for a letter that is normally not signed, a sure sign of the desire to give a good talking to rather than resolve an issue. I have made it a policy not even to read unsigned letters. They simply want to emit their verbal smog with no feedback, leaving the recipient to deal with the criticism. There is no biblical reason to read unsigned letters that violate the letter and spirit of the New Testament.
The same can be said of letters written to the church by disgruntled former church members, to be read by the pastor to the church after the authors have departed. They want no feedback or reconciliation between brothers but merely to speak their minds. Thus, I refuse to read them because these kinds of letters do not allow for the first goal of discipline, to gain a brother by reconciliation and redemption. I am still looking for the verse that says, “If you have something against your brother, write him an unsigned letter.” Go is a command, and it is intended to be obeyed.
The difference in the letter to a brother in prison is that the goal is redemption and following Christ, but unusual measures must be taken because of the distance. In these cases, discipline will likely not be implemented without letters. Also, there may be times when the prisoner is not allowed visitors or simply refuses to receive them. Neither scenario excuses us from seeking to obey Jesus. I am not proposing letters to create an easy way out. I have made visits that required driving over three hours, and once, along with two other men, I flew to another state to visit in person. Part II will be blogged in two weeks.
[1] John MacArthur, Matthew 16–23: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Moody Press, 1983), 124.
[2] Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 26th Ed. (United Bible Societies, 1975), Greek text, xiii.
[3] James S. Spiegel, Hypocrisy: Moral Fraud and Other Vices (Baker Books, 1999), 10.
[4] James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, electronic edition (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996), s.v. “sin.”
[5] Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromily, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1985), s.v. “reprove.”
