What happens when the whole congregation does not consent to the disciplinary action of a member? Must it be a unanimous decision?

     For church discipline to be most effective, everyone in the congregation needs to be involved (Matt. 18:17; 2 Thess. 3:6). Unfortunately, the ideal unanimity is sometimes lacking, making it much more difficult to carry out any aspect of the Lord’s work. Despite the internal division which plagued the Corinth church (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11; 11:17-18), the entire congregation was called upon to discipline the immoral brother in their midst (1 Cor. 5:4-5, 13). Later Paul wrote to them: “This punishment which was inflicted by the majority [hupo tôn pleionôn] is sufficient for such a man” (2 Cor. 2:6).

     The question is whether all or most of the congregation participated in this disciplinary action. It was certainly Paul’s desire that all participate (1 Cor. 5:4-5), and it is possible that this is what transpired. The word pleiôn can be used in the sense of “the many” (cf. 2 Cor. 4:15) and thus apply to the whole congregation from the standpoint of “the large number” involved. Even if pleiôn is translated “the majority,” the rest of the congregation in contrast to the disciplined member is the majority (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19).

     However, the natural sense of pleiôn (cf. 1 Cor. 10:5; 15:6; 2 Cor. 9:2; Phil. 1:14) leaves the impression that a few members of the congregation did not agree with or participate in the disciplinary procedure. There appears to have been a dissenting minority in the Corinth church (2 Cor. 10:2, 10-11; 13:2). But since most of the congregation did heed the apostle’s instructions, this was sufficient to produce the desired effect. This does not, however, excuse the non-compliant members who disobeyed an apostolic injunction (2 Cor. 2:9), and it is certainly not ideal when the decision is less than unanimous. But this passage shows that disciplinary action can (and must) be taken even when some in the congregation are unwilling to comply.

     If something is biblical and right it must be observed, and if something is unscriptural and wrong it must be opposed, whether the whole congregation stands united (Phil. 1:27) or just the majority (2 Cor. 2:6) or only a few (Rev. 3:4). The more dissenting voices there are, however, the greater the division within the body, the weaker the congregation and the bleaker its future (cf. Rev. 2:5, 16, 22; 3:3, 16).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Church Discipline, Is it scriptural for an individual to withdraw from an individual?

Image credit: http://s4.thingpic.com/images/ht/trwmPTuh7Er8XmubeF34K7TR.jpeg 

Biblical Reasons for Withdrawing from a Member of the Church

     The following sins are specifically identified in the NT as offences requiring disciplinary action: a private trespass against another with an unwillingness to repent (Matt. 18:15-17); causing divisions and offences contrary to biblical teaching (Rom. 16:17-18); sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, extortion (1 Cor. 5:11); strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, backbiting, gossip, arrogance, disturbances, impurity, fornication and lewdness (2 Cor. 12:20-13:2); all uncleanness, filthiness, foolish talking, coarse jesting (Eph. 5:1-7); disorderly conduct, refusing to work, meddling, freeloading (2 Thess. 3:6-15); rejecting the faith [straying from the truth, causing others to stumble] (1 Tim. 1:18-20; cf. 2 Tim. 2:14-18); not consenting to sound doctrine (teaching otherwise), pride, being obsessed with disputes and instigating senseless controversies, seeking gain from godliness (1 Tim. 6:3-5, KJV); vanity, greed, boasting, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, being unthankful, unholy, unloving and unforgiving, slander, without self-control, brutality, despising good, betrayal, stubbornness, haughtiness, loving pleasure rather than loving God, having a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Tim. 3:1-5); being factious (Titus 3:10-11); and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). To this list could be added offences which have provoked direct discipline from God, such as: lying (Acts 5:1-11); profaning the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:27-34); opposing the Lord’s work (2 Tim. 4:14-15); forsaking biblical love (Rev. 2:4-5); tolerating false teaching (Rev. 2:14-16, 20); spiritual lifelessness (Rev. 3:1-3); apathy and self-satisfaction (Rev. 3:15-19).

     These lists of sins, however, are more representative than they are comprehensive. The Bible contains other examples of soul-condemning offences, which would obviously require disciplinary action (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5-9; 1 Tim. 1:9-11; Rev. 21:8; et al.). But the broad statement in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 serves as a good general framework. The all-embracing “every brother” leaves no room for favoritism. The phrase “walks disorderly” (or “leads an unruly life”) indicates that the offence is ongoing rather than occasional or accidental. While the particular disorderly conduct addressed in this context is idleness and meddling (v. 11), the word ataktôs itself refers to “a disorderly or an irresponsible manner.” It was originally a military term used of a soldier who was out of step, not keeping rank, or insubordinate (cf. H. K. Moulton Greek Lexicon 58), and in 1 Thess. 5:14 the noun form (ataktos) is translated “unruly.” The misconduct is further identified by Paul as behavior “not according to the tradition” received. The word “tradition” (paradosis) refers to the teaching which Paul had received from the Lord and passed on to others, and includes the entire body of Christian doctrine (1 Thess. 2:13-17; cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:3).

     That an exhaustive list of sins was not intended (or even necessary) is demonstrated by general expressions such as the following: “and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10), “and the like” (Gal. 5:21), “any trespass” (Gal. 6:1), etc. So with a good knowledge of scripture along with basic common sense and mature reasoning (Heb. 5:14), any offence requiring church discipline ought to be “clearly evident” (cf. 1 Tim. 5:24; Gal. 5:19).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Church Discipline, When a Family Member is Disciplined, Not Keep Company With/Admonish as a Brother

Image credit: https://dg.imgix.net/advice-for-better-bible-memory-ps87xvba-en/landscape/advice-for-better-bible-memory-ps87xvba.jpg?ts=1460059794&ixlib=rails-2.1.4&w=1600&h=900&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=min

Aristarchus

     Aristarchus was a Macedonian [Eastern European] from Thessalonica (Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2), potentially converted during the brief evangelistic campaign of Paul, Silas, and Timothy in the year 50 (Acts 17:1-10) and among the disciples addressed in the Thessalonian letters (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1). He appears to have been an ethnic Jew (Col. 4:11). He went on to travel and work with Paul in Macedonia, Asia, and all the way to Judea (Acts 19:29; 20:4–21:15). He then accompanied Paul and Luke from Caesarea (Acts 27:2) across the Mediterranean Sea and was thus involved in the violent storm and subsequent shipwreck at Malta, arriving in Rome in spring 60 (Acts 28:16).

     Aristarchus was still with the apostle when the prison letters were written (ca. spring 62), acknowledged in Col. 4:10 as Paul’s “fellow prisoner” [sunaichmálōtos]. It is unclear whether this is to be taken literally or metaphorically. The same description is used of Epaphras, “my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus” (Philem. 23), although the qualifying phrase “in Christ Jesus” is not included in Aristarchus’ description. Earlier, when the apostle was still a free man, Andronicus and Junia were described as his “fellow prisoners” (Rom. 16:7).

     Aristarchus was also included among Paul’s “fellow workers” [sunergoí] (Philem. 24),¹ associated with Tychicus, Onesimus, Jesus-Justus, Epaphras, Mark, Demas, and Luke (Col. 4:7, 9, 11, 12, 14; Philem. 23-24), as well as Gaius of Macedonia, Sopater, Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus (Acts 19:29; 20:4).

     From the very beginning of his Christian walk, Aristarchus knew that being a follower of Christ, and especially a minister of the gospel, was hard (cf. Acts 17:5-10; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14). Nevertheless, he left his home to serve alongside the apostle Paul and other dedicated servants to expand the borders of God’s kingdom. According to tradition, Aristarchus died as a martyr during Emperor Nero’s persecution (ca. 64-68). We appreciate the life he lived and the service he rendered, and we give honor to whom honor is due.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnote:

     ¹ Cf. also Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; 2 Cor. 1:24; 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 3:23; Philem. 1; 3 John 8.

Related Posts: Epaphroditus, Silas/Silvanus, Titus 

Image credit: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/70/65/527065182e6afe935f538f5e84762645.jpg