Politics & Church: Judgment Beginning in the House of God

An unprecedented financial debt. A callous disregard for the lives of innocents. A confusing of genders. A judiciary that replaces law with its own will. A subjection of people to public disgrace without procedural justice. A theft of parental responsibility in the education of children.

Sound like I’m talking about politics in America? No, I’m talking about the church in America.

A few times in the debates surrounding the previous presidential elections, we heard Christians wisely point out that the political problems our nation now faces are due to a failure in the Church of God. We have excused and winked at evil in our own churches. As I Peter 4:17 says, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God. If it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them which obey not the Gospel of God?” (1599 Geneva Bible).

In other words, if the Church of Jesus Christ is not holding itself accountable to God’s instructions, how can we expect unredeemed people in our civil governments and businesses to be any different? We must first judge ourselves for the sins we complain about in our country. Things like runaway debt in the church, women taking the pastorates, adultery among the families, children being divided from the parents in church, and procedural injustice in church discipline. While it is often the case that the Church is but a minority in a nation, yet we observe that the sins the Church allows and winks at in its midst are often the ones that become most prevalent in the nation around it. This is because the Church is the “salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Mt. 5:13-16). If the Church loses it savor, Jesus said, how else will the world be salted?

The Apostle Paul also said, “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged” (I Cor. 11:31, 1599 Geneva). History illustrates this truth not only at a community level, but even at a national level. Because the people of Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s did not properly judge their own leaders, the entire nation was judged and the country became split in two for four decades, one half under the oppression of Soviet Communism. It is no excuse for a people to say, “We were just following orders” or “We were just swept up in the excitement of the crowd.” We must judge ourselves.

Christians especially, who understand biblical principles that have been taught over the centuries by godly men like Augustine and the Reformers, must judge the Church. They must judge the Church in light of principles such as the depravity of man’s fallen nature, the priesthood of the believer, and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Charles H. Spurgeon preached: “The business of the Church is to uphold, defend, maintain, and propagate the pure doctrines of Christ and His Apostles—and if she fails in this—if in her midst the Truth is not prized, if it is not adorned, if it is not vindicated and proclaimed, the church, so-called, is no longer the pillar of the Truth, but a bowing wall and a tottering fence!” [1]

This judgment must begin individually, but it must also be corporate. The corporate form of Church judgment we call church accountability and “church discipline.” Dr. Joe Morecraft writes that a “mark of the true church is the faithful and loving practice of church discipline.” [2] Dr. Al Mohler has declared that the “decline of church discipline is perhaps the most visible failure of the contemporary church.” [3]

Again, C.H. Spurgeon, called the “Prince of Preachers,” proclaimed in one of his sermons:

“Churches also get wrong when they neglect discipline; when they admit into their membership persons who do not even profess to be converted and, I add, when, because of pleasing men, they tolerate in their midst ministers whose teaching is corrupt and full of infidelity! There are preachers, nowadays, who are studiously undermining the faith once delivered to the saints! The Church should separate itself both from wicked persons and from false teachers. She should no more tolerate evil teachers in her pulpits than you would allow a poisoner in your nursery, or a wolf in your sheepfold. God grant that our Churches may rise to their duty, however painful it may be!” [4]

From this quote we see that Spurgeon was just as concerned with preachers and elders who may lead a church astray as he was with congregants who might do so, and he believed the whole church (including the congregants) had authority and responsibility to subject its leaders to the same discipline to which anyone else might be subjected.

Although Christians in the Reformed tradition have differed somewhat on the specifics about how accountability might happen in matters of church discipline, they have always agreed on some common principles.

Since the dawn of the Reformation, it has been the practice of the Reformed Church in all its denominations, to teach that officials in every sphere of authority must be subject to accountability. This has been in large part due to the Reformed Church’s conviction on the radical corruption of the heart of man by the Fall, the noetic effects of sin. Abraham Kuyper, for example, held that even though certain officials may be “Christians, they are still sinners who might abuse their power.” [5]

This Reformed understanding has led Reformed Christians to propose for both civil government and church government systems of checks and balances. Although Presbyterian and Reformed Baptists have differed as to whether accountability comes primarily from the congregation or from the presbytery of other local church elders, they have always agreed that local church elders must be accountable to some source of accountability. Neither view has proposed that local church elders may govern their local churches with unchecked, unilateral authority—to become the local popes over their congregations.

Indeed, it was by an unchecked, unilateral abuse of ecclesiastical authority that the Reformation launched when Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the Reformed Church has always held that the only form of church discipline is excommunication of some form. “Excommunication” literally means to not communicate or not fellowship. It has historically involved elders refusing the Lord’s Table from a person in communion as well as members in a church avoiding interacting with the disciplined person. The word “excommunication” is not to be found in the Bible, but the practice of the cutting off from church fellowship with someone considered a member of the congregation was taught in passages such as Matthew 18:17, I Corinthians 5:13, and II Thessalonians 3:6.

The Scriptures present different degrees of excommunication or discipline. I Corinthians 5:13 and Matthew 18:17 require that a person under such discipline be treated as an unbeliever, while II Thessalonians 3:15 says that they may still be considered fellow Christians. In either case, fellowship with such a person is to be cut off.

John Calvin’s View that Elders Should Inform Their Church and Receive Their Congregation’s Consent in Exercising Church Discipline

John Calvin is considered, along with John Knox, as one of the founders of Presbyterianism. [6] Even so, Calvin expressed a view about church discipline to which later orthodox Presbyterians would not subscribe. Calvin did not grant local elders authority to exercise church discipline without the congregation’s approval. He wrote:

“I only add, that the legitimate course to be taken in excommunication, as shown by Paul is not for the elders alone to act apart from others, but with the knowledge and approbation of the church, so that the body of the people, without regulating the procedure, may, as witnesses and guardians, observe it, and prevent the few from doing anything capriciously.”  [7]

Apparently, John Calvin feared that “the few” “church elders” might do something “capriciously” in their exercise of church discipline unless “the body of the people” were informed and approved of the discipline.

Calvin was not the only Reformed theologian who subscribed to a presbyterian form of church government who nonetheless believed the elders of a local church could be held accountable by the congregation in various situations. Abraham Kuyper, one of the leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church in the nineteenth century, who also believed in a presbyterian church government, held that “[b]elievers[ ]must rebuke negligent or apostate pastors.” [8] Indeed, such rebuking by members of the first church he pastored turned out to be instrumental in bringing him to the Reformed faith.

The Presbyterians’ View that Church Elders Implement Discipline with Accountability to the Presbytery & Congregation

Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists differ on how the word “church” (ekklesia in the Greek) is used in Scripture. Reformed Baptists generally believe that “church” is only used in two ways in the New Testament: (1) to refer to the Body of Christ universal; (2) to refer to a local congregation of professing believers. [9]

Presbyterians believe the word “church” is used in five ways. They distinguish the actual Church universal (the “invisible Church”) from the professing church universal and their children (the “visible Church”). Then they call a group of several local churches organized as a presbytery also “a church.” Finally, they call a local church represented by their elders “a church.” [10] In arguing that elders may sit in the place of a congregation as “a church,” Presbyterians such as Dr. Joe Morecraft rely on Old Testament passages that suggest it was the custom of Israel to have their elders serve as representatives of the assembly. [11]

Even so, such Presbyterians do not grant autonomy or unchecked authority to the elders in a local church. First, they believe the congregation elects its elders by vote. [12] Second, they believe that church members may appeal a decision they believe to be in error (such as decisions pertaining to church discipline) to the presbytery. [13] So if local elders perform church discipline in a wrong way, the wronged person or members of the congregation may seek to hold the elders accountable through appeal to the presbytery.

“Church officers are called to be servants and examples of Christ’s flock (1 Pet. 5:3),” writes Dr. Joe Morecraft, “not dictators over it. … In the church, Christ’s word is law.” [14]

The Reformed Baptists’ Church Discipline with the Congregation’s Informed Approval

Both Reformed Baptists of the past and contemporary ones have made it very clear that church discipline must be the task of the entire local church—not only the local elders. In this they appear to be in agreement with the quote above from John Calvin.

Charles H. Spurgeon is probably considered the most renowned Reformed Baptist preacher of the last three hundred years. He preached: “We believe that every Church member should have equal rights and privileges. We believe that there is no power in Church officers to execute anything unless they have the full authorization of the members of the Church.” [15]

In preaching on what constitutes the Church, Spurgeon proclaimed: “[I]t is called the Church. What is a church? It is an assembly—and a Christian Church is an assembly of faithful men—of men who know the Truth of God, believe it, acknowledge it boldly and adhere to it. The Greek word signifies an assembly summoned out of the whole population to exercise the right of citizenship. An ecclesia, or church, is not a mob, nor a disorderly gathering rushing together without end or purpose, but a regular assembly of persons called out by Grace and gathered together by the Holy Spirit. Those persons make up the assembly of the living God!” [16]

Spurgeon emphasized further the need for congregants to exercise accountability when he preached: “In all Churches of the living God it is a great fault if the whole of the people are not recognized in the work of the Lord, in the affairs of His house and especially in the maintenance of His Truth. … If the people could but speak so as to be heard, we should not have one-half the heresy which now defiles the house of God! The people are very often put on one side, as if they were not at all to be considered, but were to be managed and catered to by their spiritual lords! Then, alas, these great ones betray the cause and sell Christ as cheaply as Judas did!” [17]

Other Reformed Baptists agree with Spurgeon. Dr. Al Mohler is a Calvinistic Baptist who has served as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention and who is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In writing on church discipline, he says:

“If the brother does not listen even in the presence of one or two witnesses, this becomes a matter for the congregation. ‘Tell it to the church,’ instructed Jesus, and the church is to judge the matter before the Lord and render a judgment that is binding upon the sinner. This step is extremely serious, and the congregation now bears a corporate responsibility. The church must render its judgment based upon the principles of God’s Word and the facts of the case. Again, the goal is the restoration of a sinning brother or sister—not a public spectacle.

“Sadly, this congregational confrontation may not avail. If it does not, the only recourse is separation from the sinning brother. ‘Treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.’ instructed the Lord, indicating that the separation is to be real and public. The congregation is not to consider the former brother as a part of the church. This drastic and extreme act is to follow when a brother or sister will not submit to the discipline of the church. We should note that the church should still bear witness to this man, but not as brother to brother, until and unless repentance and restoration are evident.” [18]

We see from this quote that Dr. Mohler would not give autonomy to the elders of the local church in making decisions about church discipline. Under his and Spurgeon’s view, the local assembly exercises accountability over the elders and indeed they should be active participants in the exercise of church discipline.

What Other Reformed Theologians Declare about Church Discipline

Steve Atkerson is a Reformed theologian and co-founder of the New Testament Reformation Fellowship (NTRF). He is joined at that organization by other theologians such as Jonathan Lindvall, Mike Indest, and Tim Melvin. Mr. Atkerson and his colleagues from NTRF argue from Scripture that local church elders must lead by consensus within the church. They write:

“The word ‘consensus’ means general agreement, representative trend or opinion. It is related to the word ‘consent’ or ‘consensual.’ In contrast, majority rule can be a 51% dictatorship for the 49% who didn’t agree, and this certainly works against unity. Consensus, however, seeks to build unity. Would God have His church make decisions based on consensus or majority rule?” [19]

NTRF theologians point to verses such as I Corinthians 1:10 to understand consensus. This verse says: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

So how would a Reformed local church seeking to govern through congregational consensus perform church discipline? The NTRF writes:

“If after being confronted privately and with two/three witnesses, there is no fruit of repentance, the original confronter and the witnesses are to tell it to the church. This is not the church universal but the local church, the local group who meets in fellowship. … Great care must be given to avoid tale bearing and gossip and exaggeration and wrong attitudes. The goal is restoration, not crucifixion of the brother. All members of the local body are now involved in confronting and helping the brother. … Paul tells the Corinthians to put the brother out who was in sexual sin with his stepmother and in the second letter he tells the Corinthians to take him back into the fellowship of the church. As with all the other steps, this last and final step is to bring repentance and restoration.” [20]

The NTRF thus describes a process whereby the entire church is involved in deciding whether church discipline is necessary, and then implementing it for the purpose of restoration. The process is not dictatorial or visceral, but humble and gracious even while needing to be firm. But, most notably, it is a depiction of church discipline wherein there is complete unity among the local church.

Conclusion

While those in the Reformed tradition have differed somewhat on the details of how judgment was to be conducted in the Church, they have long agreed that it must be conducted and that the whole Body of Christ must take some level of responsibility for it.

Judgment must begin in the House of God, and that requires that every believer as a priest before God be a student of the Scriptures, evaluate his church’s actions by the Word, and hold himself and fellow members (including his elders) accountable to it. We cannot dump the responsibility of church discipline on the so-called “professionals” in the “clergy.”

We must work to promote unity around God’s Word in our churches by patiently persuading and building consensus on tough actions to take. But we cannot be complacent. If we are concerned about problems in our governments like debt, injustice, amalgamating gender roles, and undermining parental responsibility over children, then we have to address the same problems in our churches first.

We have to address them under the procedures God’s Word prescribes.

Footnotes:

[1] Charles H. Spurgeon,  What the Church Should Be  6  (Sermon #1436) Sept. 29, 1878. To read the full sermon, click here.

[2] Dr. Joe Morecraft III,  Authentic Christianity, Vol. 2, p. 323 (American Vision Press, 2009).

[3] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Church Discipline: The Missing Mark. To read the full message, click here.

[4] Charles H. Spurgeon,  What the Church Should Be   8 (Sermon #1436) Sept. 29, 1878. To read the full sermon, click here.

[5] James E. McGoldrick, Abraham Kuyper: God’s Renaissance Man 191 (Evangelism Press, Second Printing, 2009).

[6] The Oxford English Dictionary Online under the entry for “Presbyterianism” says that the first modern implementation of presbyterianism was by the Geneva church under the leadership of John Calvin in 1541.

[7] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4th 816 (translated by Henry Beveridge, Hendrickson Publishers, 2008).

[8] James E. McGoldrick, Abraham Kuyper: God’s Renaissance Man 129 (Evangelism Press, Second Printing, 2009).

[9] See Charles. H. Spurgeon’s sermon What the Church Should Be (Sermon #1436) Sept. 29, 1878. To read the full sermon, click here.

[10] Dr. Joseph Morecraft, III, Authentic Christianity, Vol. II  311-317 (American Vision Press, 2009).

[11] Id. at 315.

[12] Id. at 324.

[13] Id. at 334.

[14] Id. at 337.

[15] Charles H. Spurgeon, The Church—Conservative and Aggressive  2  (Sermon #393) May 19, 1861. To read the full sermon, click here.

[16] Charles H. Spurgeon, What the Church Should Be  1-2  (Sermon #1436) Sept. 29, 1878. To read the full sermon, click here.

[17] Charles H. Spurgeon, What the Church Should Be   5  (Sermon #1436) Sept. 29, 1878. To read the full sermon, click here.

[18] R. Albert Mohler, Jr.,  Church Discipline: The Missing Mark. To read the full message, click here.

[19] Steve Atkerson, editor, House Church: Simple Strategic Scriptural  76 (NTRF, 2008).

[20] Id. at 212.