Is it scriptural for an individual or group of individuals to withdraw from another member(s) without the consent of the rest of the brethren?

     Church discipline is intended to be a congregational rather than an individual exercise (cf. Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4-5, 13; 2 Thess. 3:6), and obviously something is wrong when one or a few members are practicing something different from the rest. But if withdrawing from an erring Christian is necessary, whether it is done by the whole congregation or by only one person, it remains a biblical requirement and those refusing to do so are neglecting a divine mandate.

     Paul, as an individual, made judgments and took action against those in error, even when others did not (1 Cor. 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 13:2-3; 1 Tim. 1:20). Granted, as a divinely-appointed apostle he was in a position to do so and had the authority to command others to do the same (cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). But one always has divine authority to do what is right. Timothy, as an individual, was instructed to “turn away from” [apotrepou - 2nd person singular] certain ungodly people (2 Tim. 3:5) and Titus, as an individual, was told to “reject” [paraitrou - 2nd person singular] a divisive man (Titus 3:10). And while a textual variant makes it less than conclusive, in 1 Tim. 6:5 (KJV) Timothy, as an individual, was admonished to “withdraw from” [aphistaso - 2nd person singular] certain trouble-makers. It must be understood, however, that both Timothy and Titus were commissioned to impart to the brethren the instructions they had received (1 Tim. 4:6, 11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 14; 4:2; Titus 1:5, 9; 2:1-10; 3:8). Surely Paul did not expect Timothy and Titus to withdraw from wayward people without expecting the rest of the brethren to do the same. But what would have been required of Timothy and Titus if the brethren at Ephesus and Crete had been unwilling to comply with the apostle’s instructions? Surely these men would have had to individually turn away from those in error.

     At this point it may be helpful to make an important distinction. No one today has the authority to single-handedly discipline another Christian or group of Christians. One may teach, caution, warn, and instruct (2 Tim. 4:2), but no individual has the power to put anyone out of the church (cf. 3 John 10). The disciplining of an errant member is a congregational responsibility and when everyone participates it is much more effective. However, when an individual (like Timothy or Titus) takes action alone, it is more for the purpose of self-protection and obedience to God than it is for disciplinary purposes. Certainly the congregation must be informed of the situation and given an opportunity to take a stand (cf. Matt. 18:15-17), but when an individual disassociates himself from another, without the participation of other Christians, the disciplinary impact is significantly weakened. Yet every Christian is under obligation to protect himself (and his family) from evil influences and to obey the Lord, whether others join him or not.

     A word of caution is in order. Sometimes a person suffers from the Elijah complex, thinking he is the only faithful one, when in reality Jehovah has thousands who have not yet bowed their knees to Baal (1 Kings 19:14-18). Before hasty decisions are made, one should seek the wise counsel of mature, biblically-knowledgeable Christians. “Without counsel, plans go awry, but in the multitude of counsellors they are established” (Prov. 15:22). This is probably one of the reasons the Lord requires a plurality of witnesses before action is taken against an accused brother (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). While we need more individuals like Paul, Timothy and Titus, who are willing to stand for the truth even if it means standing alone, the church is not benefited by those like Diotrephes, who go overboard and withdraw from brethren illegitimately (3 John 9-10).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Church Discipline, Biblical Reasons for Withdrawing, When the whole congregation doesn't consent, Is it scriptural for a congregation to withdraw from a congregation?

Image credit: https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAN8AAAAJGIzOTM5NjI2LWNhMWYtNDFlNS1hYTZiLTVlNTQ2MDFlM2YzYQ.jpg

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