Not a Fight Club
The headline of an article caught my attention. In Goshen, IN, one church found a creative outreach effort to draw men into the fold. They started a “fight club”. Yes, actual MMA-style fighting as a recreational sport to draw in men who would not otherwise darken the door of a church. As I read the article, I laughed out loud as I realized I had misunderstood. It was actually a discipleship group that used the fighting theme as a draw for more commitment from its men. No church members were harmed in the making of that ministry. Unfortunately, the reality of church life for most of us has had a strong resemblance to such a fight club—minus the evangelistic heart. In fact, the churches we have become accustomed to are known to our communities as a fight club: bickering, backbiting, back-stabbing, and brash. In the end, people are not drawn to Christ but repulsed.
“MANY OF US [IN THE CHURCH] ARE LIKE PORCUPINES TRYING TO HUDDLE TOGETHER ON A BITTER COLD NIGHT TO KEEP EACH OTHER WARM, BUT WE CONTINUALLY POKE AND HURT EACH OTHER THE CLOSER WE GET.”
— HOWARD HENDRICKS
History shows us this is not the exception. The Antioch Church Riot (387 AD) is a good example. A notable historical incident occurred in the city of Antioch in the late 4th century. A theological dispute between supporters of John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople, and his opponents led to a violent confrontation within the local church. The conflict escalated to the point where a mob stormed the church, resulting in injuries and deaths.1 Sounds like a Baptist business meeting. On another occasion, a fight erupted at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD where tensions ran high between supporters of Cyril of Alexandria and those of Nestorius. Theological disputes over the nature of Christ escalated, leading to violent clashes both inside and outside the council chambers. Soldiers were eventually called in to restore order.2 Some things just don’t change.
As people are the building blocks of a New Testament church, the challenges of human sinfulness emerge quite naturally. Throughout church history, the efforts to deal with that messy reality have fallen under the heading of “Church Discipline.” Church discipline is an important principle found throughout the Bible, from the Old Testament to the New. Although our modern palates are sensitive to words like that, the purpose of church discipline is actually good and redemptive, as corrective processes enable responsible parties in the church to maintain holiness, restore harmony, and preserve the testimony of the church to outsiders. As Puritan Thomas Manton said, “Divisions in the church always breed atheism in the world.” Our work is to maintain the spirit of unity in the bonds of peace (Ephesians 4:3) this leads to peaceful relationships within and a healthy witness to outsiders.
Old Testament Discipline
In the Old Testament, community discipline was not primarily carried out by the priests and leaders of Israel but by everyone. Leviticus 19:17 states, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him." There was a clear importance in brothers addressing sin within the community and a need for open and honest communication in addressing it. Although the leaders have the ultimate responsibility of oversight in keeping things decent and orderly, this work belongs to every member of the community and carries the responsibility of lovingly, but directly addressing issues so those problems don’t grow and risk the destabilization of the whole group.
As things get more dicey, Deuteronomy 19:15-21 outlines the importance of witnesses in disputes. This concept is foundational to the idea of requiring multiple corroborating testimonies before taking disciplinary action:
"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
This principle emphasizes the importance of fairness and thorough investigation before rendering judgment. In fact, the Mosaic Law provided a comprehensive set of guidelines like this for the Israelite community, covering various aspects of life, morality, and worship. Offenses against these laws often had prescribed consequences, including expulsion from the community or other forms of punishment (Deuteronomy 13:6-11, Leviticus 24:10-23). Clearly, communal responsibility and accountability was the expectation.
Discipline in the Intertestamental Period
The Mishnah is a codification of Jewish oral traditions and serves as a primary source of Jewish law. In the Mishnah, sections such as "Sanhedrin" and "Bava Metzia" contain discussions on legal and ethical matters, including community discipline. Here there are discussions about various offenses that could lead to excommunication imposed by the community.34
Similarly, the Talmud, a compilation of commentary and discussions on the Mishnah, addresses the concept of "niddah," a form of excommunication, and the circumstances under which it might be applied.4 It expands the procedural aspects of community discipline, including the criteria for imposing a ban, the process of investigation, and the potential for repentance leading to the lifting of the ban.
Before the Holy Spirit launched the church at Pentecost, these kinds of practices were alive and well. In Matthew 10:17-22, Jesus warns his disciples that they will be persecuted, arrested, and excommunicated from the synagogues for his sake. WE see here community discipline was centered in the synagogues:
In John 9:34, the Pharisees excommunicate the man who had been born blind and his parents from the synagogue for confessing Jesus as the Son of God.
In John 12:42-43, many of the chief rulers of the Jews who believed in Jesus did not confess him publicly, for fear of being excommunicated from the synagogue.
These practices derived from Old Testament law were certainly abused and misrepresented at times. Nevertheless, the practice did not wane. The most comprehensive example in all scripture is seen in Matthew 18:15-17. Here, Jesus gives step-by-step instructions that include the confrontation of an offense, the desire for redemption and reconciliation, the need for repentance, community involvement, escalating circles of containment for the protection of reputations, and relationships, etc. Although given before the inauguration of the local church, it is the premier case of community discipline. In this case, Jesus gives instructions on how to handle a brother who sins—stating that if the brother does not repent after being confronted privately or corporately, the unrepentant offender is expelled. Jesus seems to expect the perpetual use of these principles. How do we know? Consult the Apostles.
Discipline in the Epistles
Church discipline is not new, and it is not merely a figment of Baptist imagination. A scan through the New Testament epistles with an eye for these ideas would quickly accumulate a number of clear applications. Not only did Jesus bridge the Old Testament law concerning this in his earthly ministry, but this expectation is streaming into the New Testament in nearly every letter to the churches.
In 1 Corinthians 5, for example, a man committed a serious offense of sexual immorality with his father's wife. Paul would not excuse the cowardly Corinthian church for their lack of initiative. He called them to mourn over the sin and instructed them to excommunicate the man. In his words, this was a "deliver[ing] him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Cor 5:5). This could seem merely a theoretical application, but he went on to demonstrate that this meant the church was not to associate with or even eat with the sinning brother. The Greek phrase "not to associate" (μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι) means "to have no company with." Paul went on to show this applied to more than merely the extreme case. A sinning brother could be defined as one who is immoral, covetous, an idolater, a reviler, a drunkard, or a swindler.
The closing verses of the letter to the Romans (16:17-18) serve as a warning against false teachers. There, Paul instructs the Romans to "avoid them" (ἐκκλίνετε ἀπʼ αὐτῶν). The false teachers are identified by their association with "divisions" (διχοστασίας) and "obstacles" (σκάνδαλα) they have created. He summarizes that they do not serve the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, discipline is called for.
The Apostle applies discipline in handling idle individuals in two places in 2 Thessalonians. The contemporary word for them might be “lazy”. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, he commands to "keep away" from such individuals. In 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Paul says to "not associate" with them. Paul had previously addressed idleness in his first letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 4:11-12), where some members of the congregation were relying on others for their daily bread instead of working. Paul commands them to withdraw from any brother "who is walking in idleness". In 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9, Paul sets an example by working night and day so as not to be a burden, and in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, he states that "if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." He calls these individuals "busybodies" (2 Thess 3:11) that must be confronted.
The pastoral epistles further prove a well of instruction to draw on in the area of church discipline. This is especially true when considering this is how Paul was instructing Timothy concerning how believers were to conduct themselves in the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15). You see harmony out of sync in 1 Timothy 1:19-20, where the false teachers Hymenaeus and Alexander are confronted and rebuked for committing blasphemy. The Apostle Paul again mentions the idea of “handing them over to Satan”. Again, it is a description of church discipline that would imply a spiritual dimension but with consequential, material-world application. This along with the other passages so far illustrates a consistent and conclusive work in breaking fellowship with unrepentant members. After all, what fellowship has light with darkness (1 Corinthians 6:14)?
“The exclusion from the fellowship of God's people was intended to teach the troublemakers a lesson through Satan's afflictions, without the offender’s network of support, enduring such a direct attack of the enemy would prove overwhelming.”5
In Titus 3:10, Paul addresses the issue of havoc caused by "division-makers" (αἱρετικὸν), a term from the Greek language that refers to individuals who spread division and cause strife. This term is the origin of the words "heresy" and "heretic." Paul specifically mentions that these division-makers follow teachings that lead to foolish controversies, genealogies, and disputes about the law. He instructs the readers to completely sever ties with these individuals and "have nothing more to do with him" a phrase which means to dismiss them or drive them out.
With this survey, it becomes clear that the practice of church discipline is not a novel concept but one that is rooted in the teachings of Jesus and the instructions of the New Testament apostles. From Paul's letters to the Corinthian, Roman, and Thessalonian churches, as well as the churches related to the pastoral epistles, it is evident that the early church was expected to maintain holiness and harmony through church discipline.
Discipline in Church History
Historical data from the Reformation in the 16th century shows this practiced as "ecclesiastical visitation." Many followers of Luther and Calvin, as well as Anglicans, formulated systems involving visiting each member of the congregation to ensure they were living according to biblical standards and taking disciplinary action where necessary. If you ever wondered why we call “Tuesday Night Visitation” by that name, now you know. Later, we see this same discipline practiced by English Baptists of the 17th century, whether among Anabaptists or ranging from the General Baptists to the Particular Baptists. As Al Mohler reminds us, “Churches held regular ‘Days of Discipline’ when the congregation would gather to heal breaches of fellowship, admonish wayward members, rebuke the obstinate, and, if necessary, excommunicate those who resisted discipline.” This was no sideshow but rather a regular part of Baptist life.
In Chapter 26 of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which deals with the church, section 8 specifically addresses church discipline. Here's an excerpt:
"The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. In Him, by the appointment of the Father, is vested in a supreme and sovereign manner all authority for the calling, institution, order, and government of the churches. ... To each of these churches gathered, according to His mind declared in His Word, He has given all the authority and power requisite for them to carry on the order of worship and discipline, which He has instituted for them to observe."
This section affirms the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ over the church and the autonomy of local churches. But it also clearly acknowledges that each local church has been given the authority and power to carry on the order of worship and discipline as instituted by Christ in His Word. While the 1689 Baptist Confession doesn't go into great detail on the specific procedures of church discipline, it establishes the principle that the authority for discipline is vested in the local church, and it is to be exercised in accordance with the principles found in the Scriptures.
The Baptists in the 19th and 20th centuries began to incorporate their church discipline into their systems of "church membership." “Membership” was the vehicle for church discipline, and where principles of harmony and holiness would be applied. They were not hunting down sin in the body and beating every bush, as they believed in a liberty of conscience before God. When it emerged that members were found to be living in a manner inconsistent with the teachings of the church, then they would be subject to disciplinary action, including the possibility of withholding fellowship and the revoking of membership. They were not forced to conform, but this was a recognition of an unrepentant offender’s decision to withdraw fellowship by their practice.
It will be shocking to many to know that between 1781 and 1860, forty thousand people were disfellowshipped from church in the state of Georgia alone. On average, Baptist churches practiced discipline on 3-4% of their membership in regular special conferences for that purpose. (Dever Polity, p. 25-25). Unfortunately, in the last century, this practice of discipline fell out of vogue, and our churches have suffered greatly for it ever since. “By the 1960s, only a minority of churches even pretended to practice regulative church discipline. Significantly, confessional accountability and moral discipline were generally abandoned together.” With some contemporary churches adopting a more therapeutic approach to discipline, the focus on the counseling and pastoral care aspects of recovery or toward pragmatic secular approaches to mediation between offended parties became more popular. Just as many have abandoned the formality of membership, the idea of “discipline” or “excommunication” has become downright repulsive to some. These more progressive views may see the textual examples as extreme efforts or overly harsh—if not “un-Christian”—even when clearly articulated in the Sacred Text. The Apostle Paul saw it more clearly:
"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:1-4 (ESV)
No, we are not a fight club but our holiness, harmony, and testimony are worth fighting for.
Study Questions
True or False
True or False: Church discipline is a principle found only in the New Testament.
True or False: The Mishnah and the Talmud discuss aspects of community discipline, including excommunication.
True or False: The ultimate goal of church discipline is reconciliation and restoration.
Multiple Choice
Which Old Testament book emphasizes the importance of multiple witnesses before taking disciplinary action?
A. Genesis
B. Leviticus
C. Deuteronomy
D. Numbers
In 1 Corinthians 5, what is Paul’s main concern regarding the church's reaction to the sinning member?
A. The church’s lack of action and mourning over the sin
B. The church’s overreaction and harsh punishment
C. The church’s indifference towards the sin
D. The church’s misunderstanding of the sin
According to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, who has the authority to ensure on the order of worship and discipline in the church?
A. The head of the denomination
B. The local church
C. The government
D. Community outsiders
Deeper Questions
Discuss the biblical basis for church discipline as outlined in both the Old and New Testaments. Include specific scriptures that support the practice.
Explain how church discipline was practiced in the early church according to the New Testament epistles. Provide examples from Paul’s letters to various churches.
Trace the history of church discipline from the Reformation to modern times. How have practices changed or remained consistent, and what impact has this had on church communities?
What does Church discipline look like in your church?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/297505
https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/getting-a-handle-on-the-early-church-councils-part-2-the-third-council-of-ephesus-ad-431-hold-on-the-ride-is-going-to-get-bumpy/
https://reformjudaism.org/learning/sacred-texts/mishnah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bava_Metzia
Gregory A. Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South 17851900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 12.