Many articles on this subject appeal to the same biblical data, although traditions among various church groups vary somewhat. That is to say, some groups have employed an elaborate system of church courts and conduct codes while on the other extreme other groups have employed a loose ad hoc process that seems to follow no strict Biblical guidance whatsoever. (I suppose one could say on the “other, other extreme” there are some that employ virtually no discipline whatsoever, but their arguments really don’t belong in this conversation.)
When considering church discipline, the doctrine should answer at least these questions: 1. What should cause a church discipline process to begin? 2. How should it be conducted? 3. Does the Bible give a strict code for the process? 4. What is the goal of church discipline?
Before getting to these questions, I should note the passages commonly cited in relation to church discipline by various writers. The most prominent passage is Matthew 18.15-20. This passage is in every article I’ve seen on the topic. Likewise, the whole of 1 Corinthians 5 (1 Cor 5.1-13) is almost always mentioned, along with Galatians 6.1-2. Other passages come up, depending on the author. We will reference some of these in the discussion.
The Cause for Church Discipline
The cause for church discipline is a critical question. The church through history has answered the question in a variety of ways, depending on the historical situation or denominational context. As the church grew to a position of dominance in the empire, became entangled with the affairs of state, confusion between civil and spiritual authority grew, and offenses against the state became intermingled with offenses against the church. In addition, a complex system of penance placed offenders under great burdens as they could only be restored after many years of humiliation.
After the Reformation, the New Dictionary of Theology says “the Anabaptists were the first of the sixteenth-century traditions to develop a coherent approach to church discipline, following the pattern laid down in Matt. 18:15–20.”[1] They instituted a system where the local church exercised its own discipline when members sinned. This is seen in Section 2 of Michael Sattler’s Schleitheim Confession:
The Ban (Excommunication)
A Christian should live with discipline and walk in the way of righteousness, following after Jesus every day. Those members of the Body who slip and fall into sin should be admonished twice in private, but the third offense should be openly disciplined and banned as a final recourse. This should always occur prior to the breaking of the bread, to preserve the unity and purity of the Body of Christ.[2]
Among Lutherans, as they were wedded to the state, most discipline was left to civic government. “Reformed Protestantism, however, had a more positive estimate not only of the place of the law in the life of believers and churches, but also of the formalization of this in terms of codes of conduct and mechanisms for dealing with erring members.”[3] Note here the term “place of the law in the life of believers” and “codes of conduct.” English (and American) Puritanism developed from this tradition of Reformation thought and pursued a similar form of discipline.
The reason we should pay attention to this history is that some discussion of discipline in Christian circles flows from these traditions, and Christians have argued what constitutes grounds for discipline. Some offenses are surely obvious from Scripture (we will discuss these later), but reportedly, “Luther threatened to excommunicate a person who intended to sell a house for 400 guilders that he had purchased for 30.”[4] Most North American Christians would be shocked at church interference in private transactions.
Kitchen cites various lists compiled by Puritan leaders and others as grounds for church discipline, but then makes this wise comment: “A list, in itself useful enough, can nevertheless become a rulebook that quickly replaces the Word and Spirit of God for needed guidance in matters of church discipline. Lists can engender legalism and can also produce blind spots, that is, preoccupation with some sins while others go unattended. As Jescke observes, ‘When seventy-five percent of a Church’s list of excommunications has to do with clothes, there is something woefully wrong.’ (Marvin L. Jescke, “Toward an Evangelical Conception of Corrective Church Discipline” (PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1965), p. 76.)”[5]
Why is there a question about the cause that justifies church discipline? The reason is found in the primary passage on church discipline, Matthew 18.15-20. The Lord’s instruction begins, “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault…” (Mt 18.15). The Lord specifies nothing beyond the verb sins. In a lengthy Theological Dictionary of the New Testament article we get this definition, “essentially sin is the rejection of the claim of God by self-assertive man”[6] Louw-Nida gives this simple definition: “to act contrary to the will and law of God.”[7]
However, does the Lord mean to specify any and every sin here as grounds for church discipline? He doesn’t give further light in the passage, but whatever he means, if the individual doesn’t confess and repent, Jesus concludes, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18.18). In the context of 1st century Judaism, this means not only expulsion from the synagogue, but complete social shunning, “the Ban” in the words of the Schleitheim Confession.[8] While it is not absolutely clear, it seems that the conclusion of the process dictates at least this standard: Jesus means that such unrepentant sins demand expulsion.
Where is the church left with this question? Must the church think through possible offenses and create a list of “church crimes” which merit expulsion? What if we miss something in our lists? Does the Bible offer any help?
The secondary passage on church discipline is 1 Corinthians 5. The specific sin that motivated the chapter is a rare one, even among Gentiles. In the passage, Paul has “already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh …” (1 Co 5.3b-5a) In other words, Paul says, “kick the dude out.”
The passage doesn’t stop there. As noted, the 1 Corinthians 5 sin is rare, so Paul concludes with “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler — not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Co 5.11) We see here a list that specifies sins that justify the ban. These are flagrant public sins, and the church cannot tolerate the presence of this kind of sin amongst church members. (The church must try to evangelize those in the world who commit such sins, but it cannot tolerate members who persist in such sins, see 1 Co 5.10.)
So, the first point that we must make about church discipline is that the consequences are so grievous that the process must be applied to flagrant, public, persistent sins. The fact is, every Christian regularly sins some way almost every day. Should the church be in the business of ferreting out every sin a believer might commit and demand instant repentance, or else? If we did that, we would do nothing but practice church disciplline in church business.
The Process of Church Discipline
The second question about church discipline has to do with how we go about it. On the surface, this seems an easy question to answer. Matthew 18.15-17 offers a straightforward progression:
Mt 18.15-18 ¶ “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 “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.
17 “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 collector.
Or to put it into simple language:
- First must come private reproof: an individual sees a sin, he goes to his brother and shows him his sin “in private.”
- Second is private conference: drawing on Dt 19.15, the purpose of this step is that the sinning brother might hear the witness of others and that the others can provide a witness to what the confronter says and does — if it comes to a public meeting, the one who began the process is not merely pitting his word against the word of the sinning brother.
- Finally comes a public announcement: the accuser brings the matter to the church’s attention for the church to render judgement. The church has the authority to expel someone who will not hear the witness of the church against his sin.
All of this is straightforward enough. There is much wisdom and value in a step-by-step process. It gives a chance for the Holy Spirit to work and if the sinning individual is a true believer, one would think repentance would come somewhere along the way in the process.
However, other passages give additional insight into this. The most important insight comes from Galatians 6.1-2:
Gal 6.1-2 ¶ Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
Paul addresses the spirit of the questioner in this passage. The “spiritual” Christian should attempt to restore “in a spirit of gentleness” and “bear one another’s burdens.” This is a spirit of brokenness and humility, not of censure and prejudice. In any such confrontation, it is all too easy to be filled with pride and a sense of superiority as you confront the sinning one. In a sermon on the subject, my friend Chuck Phelps says,
“It’s not a license for those who somehow think themselves to be more spiritual than anyone else to be set free to be the spiritual sheriffs of the congregation.”[9]
The first expansion of the process refers to the spirit of the questioner. Since the matter is so serious, the questioner needs to exercise caution to come to his brother in a spirit of humility, seeking to bring sin to light, not pre-judging, but with sympathy and concern. In my opinion, if someone can’t come in that spirit, appeal for help should be made to another believer who can take a humble approach.
A Law or a Guide?
The third question I asked in the introduction is this: “Does the Bible give a strict code for the process?” In other words, is Matthew 18 a Law or a Guide? Should Matthew 18 be strictly followed as if one is checking off boxes on a divine checklist? Is that what Jesus intended? Does the New Testament give any evidence of this?
The New Testament gives us very few church discipline passages of any kind. The apostles generally touch on discipline indirectly in their teaching but do give some instruction on handling differences between believers. They give hardly any “live” examples as test cases for us to follow.
The only historical example that comes close to a church discipline situation is that of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. This couple had sold a field and donated a significant amount to the church for the support of needy brethren. The implication is that they held back some of the funds for themselves, but they gave out the impression that they were donating the whole amount to the church. Peter, with insight from the Spirit, understood their deception, challenged their sincerity, and pronounced judgement. Both husband and wife died on the spot.
Now I certainly grant that none of us today are apostles with apostolic insight such as Peter had. It strikes me, however, that Peter saw no need to follow the three-step process in dealing with this situation.
Another passage that deals with a potential church discipline situation is 1 Corinthians 6. Here, Paul begins with this question: “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?” (1 Co 6.1) Tom Constable comments:
“The apostle continued to deal with the general subject of discipline in the church that he began in 5:1. He proceeded to point out some other glaring instances of inconsistency that had their roots in the Corinthians’ lax view of sin. … In view of the context, the ‘neighbor’ must be a fellow Christian (vv. 6, 8). The ‘unrighteous’ or ‘ungodly’ (NIV) contrasts with the ‘saints,’ and refers to an unbeliever (v. 6). When people had disputes with each other in Corinth and wanted official arbitration, they went to the bema (judgment seat) in the center of town.”[10]
The upshot of Paul’s discussion is that he says to the combatting Corinthians that they should conduct their own judgement of the dispute within the church, not going to law before unbelievers, but submitting the case to their brothers for adjudication. Paul doesn’t stop there, however. In verse seven he says:
1 Cor 6.7 ¶ Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
What does he mean? It seems to me that Paul suggests here that another option, besides taking your brother to church court, is to simply take the loss, let the matter go, and give up your claim entirely. Again, Tom Constable comments:
“The shame of people who professed to love one another, and who supposedly put the welfare of others before their own, suing each other, was a defeat in itself. This defeat was far more serious than any damages that they may have had to pay. It would be better to suffer the wrong or be defrauded than to fight back in such an unchristian way (Matt. 5:39–40; 1 Pet. 2:19–24).”[11]
Here I will note that Tom Constable calls this a church discipline passage. But I have a question: why does Paul not describe a three-step process here? Why does he mention “taking the loss” as an option? Why does he not say, “If the brother won’t hear the church, kick him out”? I don’t think we can give a dogmatic answer on this, but the passage may shed some light on our use of Matthew 18.
Besides these, there are several more passages to consider. Think again of 1 Corinthians 5, the condemnation of the man who had his father’s wife. Here Paul offers his judgement. He gives instructions. He doesn’t insist on the three-step process. He offers his judgement: “kick him out.”
Some other passages imply a process other than the three-step process of Matthew 18. These are in the pastoral epistles, where Paul is speaking to Timothy and Titus very personally. Consider 1 Timothy 1.18-20:
1 Tim 1.18-20 ¶ This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.
Paul mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander who rejected the faith and suffered shipwreck (v. 19) so Paul “handed [them] over to Satan.” It is a brief account, and Paul is an apostle (and we are not), but why no mention of the three-step process?
Then 1 Timothy 5.19-20:
1 Tim 5.19-20 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.
The context here is discipline applied to pastors. Yet the explicit process mentioned here is two-step, not three (though of course there could be room for three steps). Here he says Timothy (as an elder of elders) may receive a charge supported by two or three witnesses, then if the accused doesn’t repent, he is to rebuke in the presence of all. My point here is that the explicit evidence of the text is only two steps, and the second is up to Timothy’s adjudication (apparently). not that of the congregation.
One could assume that Timothy’s “rebuke in the presence of all” follows a hearing of the congregation, but the text doesn’t say that. Further, the rebuke isn’t “Depart from us, you Gentile and tax-collector.” What I am saying is that we must weigh Scripture against Scripture to get a sense of the overall teaching or doctrine on this and all other Biblical subjects.
Another passage is 2 Timothy 2.24-26:
2 Tim 2.24-26 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
Here Paul talks about Christians who “are in opposition” [perhaps to the pastor, “the Lord’s bond-servant,” v. 24]. What should Timothy do with them? Be kind, be ready to teach, be patient when wronged, correct gently “and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil.” Where is the three-step process here?
And now to Titus:
Tit 1.10-14 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. 12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.
Here Titus is told there are “rebellious men” (some apparently Judaizers) who “must be silenced” (11). Paul says, “For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith.” Here the pastor is told to reprove these men severely, but where is the process? Is this not a form of discipline? Is the objective not discipleship rather than expulsion?
And finally, Paul says in Titus 3.10-11:
Tit 3.10-11 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
Is the three-step process in view here? It might be. There is a first and second warning — by whom? Then there is a rejection. Again, by whom? The church? It doesn’t say, but it is Titus who is to do the rejection.
I have belabored this point purposely. I want to think about the nature of the Matthew 18 instructions. We can’t suppose the apostles (other than Matthew) were unaware of them. Yet the explicit process is never mentioned again by the apostles in the New Testament. Some of the church discipline passages could include the three-step process, but as I have shown, they don’t necessarily include them.
What are we to conclude? Is Matthew 18 a Law or a Guide? I suggest it is a guide. Churches must use wisdom as they deal with problems among them. They must be willing to go as far as the ultimate step of expulsion, but they may well take some time to get there, doing everything they can to help the sinner come to repentance.
The Goal of Church Discipline
The goal of church discipline is perhaps the least controversial aspect of this doctrine, but it is often the bit that is most often ignored. When someone sins, Christians are offended. They often want the person to be punished, or at least rebuked and corrected. Their approach can be authoritarian and accusatory, putting the offender on the defensive and far less likely to respond positively than if approached in humility with a view to restoration.
Let’s listen again to the passages:
Mt 18.15 ¶ “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
1 Cor 5.5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Gal 6.1 ¶ Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.
2Th 3.14-15 ¶ If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. 15 Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
And last of all:
2 Cor 2.5-11 ¶ But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree — in order not to say too much — to all of you. 6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority,7 so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.8 Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For to this end also I wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11 so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.
Some people think the man in this 2 Corinthians passage is the man of 1 Corinthians 5. It is possible, but Paul doesn’t say that, and I suspect it is someone else.
In any case, the goal for the sinning individual must be repentance and restoration to fellowship. The brethren who are involved in dealing with the sinner must not sin against him and drive him away as they deal with him. They must instead be humble, godly, and firm. If necessary, they will have to guide the church through an expulsion process, but that is a last resort.
Conclusion:
When I was younger in the ministry, I held the view that Matthew 18 was absolute. I have led our church through two situations where we had to expel someone from the church. They were horrible, wrenching experiences. These experiences can traumatize a church. Without careful leadership, they can lead to church splits.
Consequently, based not only on my experience but the consideration of the New Testament as a whole, I’ve come to reconsider my approach to Matthew 18. I think it provides a guide or pattern, but not an inflexible law. What I mean by that is Matthew 18 is paradigmatic rather than programmatic. If it were programmatic, every step must be followed every time in exact sequence. Taking it as paradigmatic means that it is a type or pattern, but not a rigid law, especially as opposed to the Pharisaic approach to the OT Law.[12] One can think of situations where some steps would be impossible, but the church would have to proceed with discipline anyway.
To offer an extreme example, if a church member were suddenly arrested and imprisoned for a violent crime and was held without bail, there may be no visitation rights, no possibility of a personal meeting or any kind of group meeting. If the man were found guilty, would the church be required to keep him as a member, since you couldn’t “properly” follow each step of discipline in order? I don’t think the Lord means to bind us in this way.
In less extreme examples, it is still possible that circumstances may interfere with carrying out the steps of Matthew 18 in a programmatic fashion. The church leaders must use wisdom, consider the whole teaching, give individuals fair treatment, always hoping for repentance and restoration, though determined to follow the spirit of the Scriptures so that they may guard the purity of the church and care for the members who remain.
In confirmation, we see that the apostles don’t appear to have always followed the exact process as outlined in Matthew 18, which gives me confidence to refine my view of the passage.
I also think that we must be careful about what sins demand the Matthew 18 process. We don’t have a lot of information in the Bible about this, but we do have that list in 1 Cor 5.11. Those are profoundly serious sins. Some matters don’t seem to rise to this level (even business cheats, as in 1 Cor 6). And then what about Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4.2-3? They appear to be embroiled in a personality conflict. Surely sin is involved. Paul doesn’t advocate Matthew 18 for them, does he?
Thus, great care is demanded. The unity of the church is a precious thing, and the leaders and people of the church should do everything they can to preserve Christian unity in the church, short of allowing flagrant public sin any room in the fellowship.
Appendix – Correspondence with Pastor Chuck Phelps.
Having quoted Pastor Phelps in the article, I thought it might be wise to submit my article to him for his comment. Here is what he said:
Don –
You have written a very fine paper and given me some things to consider that I’ve not considered before. You take a 4-step view of Mt. 18 that I’ve recently come to believe is the right position.
I think that the real issue is “When do we exercise church discipline?” Let me share my approach to this question with you from a simplistic perspective. While what I’m about to say may sound a like a genre-based hermeneutic, I do believe that what I suggest is justified.
- The Church is prophesied in the gospels – Mt. 16; Mt. 18
- The Church is produced in the Acts – Acts 2f
- The Church is perfected in the Epistles
While we look to the wisdom of Matthew 18 for matters of procedure – we need to look to the words of the Epistles when we ask, “When does it apply?”
Here’s what we find in the Epistles:
- Discipline is required when the moral purity of the church is compromised – I Cor. 5
- Discipline is required when the doctrinal purity of the church is compromised – II Jn. 10; Rom. 16:17
- Discipline is required when the purity of the church leadership is compromised – I Tim. 5
- Discipline is required when the public testimony of the church is compromised – II The. 3:6-15
The person in II The. 3 became a public scandal – even so, the list found in I Cor. 5:11 would involve sins that would be publicly scandalous.
- Discipline is required – at least to the point of public warning if the unity of the church is compromised – Rom. 16:17
Working with church discipline requires that we be very objective. It is when things become subjective that we risk splitting the assembly.
With the advent of the contemporary Christian counseling movement many believers have come to assume that discipline is appropriate when personally offended. It seems that the epistles make it clear that personal offenses are to be resolved through mediation (I Cor. 6) but offenses against the testimony, position, and unity of the assembly need to be dealt with publicly.
I’m not sure that I want to reduce the patterns of Matthew 18 to quasi-proverbial instruction.
Let me know what you think of the paradigm proposed above – you’re reading on this topic is fresher than mine. These are the streams that have given me peace on the matter over the years.
In response to Chuck’s comment about “quasi-proverbial instruction,” I expanded my conclusion to discuss the difference between taking Mt 18 paradigmatically vs. programmatically. As for the rest of his comments, I agree wholeheartedly as consistent with what has been said in the paper.
[1] T. Grass, “Church Discipline,” in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. J. I Packer, David F. Wright, and Sinclair B. Ferguson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 185.
[2] “Schleitheim Confession,” in Wikipedia, April 30, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schleitheim_Confession&oldid=1221584773 (It should be noted that while we hold up the Anabaptists as forebears to our own Baptist tradition, we do not accept their practices of beliefs wholesale.).
[3] Grass, “Church Discipline,” 185.
[4] Ted G. Kitchens, “Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline,” Bibliotheca Sacra?: Dallas Theological Seminary 148, no. 590 (1991): 201.
[5] Kitchens, 202.
[6] Walter Grundmann, “????????, ????????, ???????: Sin in the NT,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 316.
[7] Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 772.
[8] Note: Jesus, in Matthew, is speaking in the 1st century Jewish context. The disciples would have understood it this way. The church has historically taken these words to inform itself about church procedure in the Christian era, but our understanding begins with a 1st century Jewish context.
[9] Charles Phelps, Counsel for Christ’s Children – Part 2, Matthew: Behold Your King (Colonial Hills Baptist Church, 2014), (beginning about 13:30), https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/330141645199.
[10] Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), 1 Co 6.1.
[11] Constable, 1 Co 6.7 (Note: here, the Mt 5 reference has to do with turning the other cheek, the 1 Peter refence to a willingness to suffer unjustly.).
[12] A paradigm is an “example, pattern especially: an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype” — “paradigm” in Frederick C. Mish, ed., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003). or “A pattern or model, an exemplar; (also) a typical instance of something, an example.” — Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “paradigm (n.), sense 1,” September 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1668681488.