Jonathan, you said our misguided brother heading into ministry was using the language of "God calling me." I would encourage him that any internal sense of calling needs to be confirmed by the church externally. 1John 4:1 "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God...." This command is addressed to the whole church. This isn't to claim that the church has "more" authority than the Spirit. It's that God has saved us into a community in order to help us test the spirits together. Besides, many people make autonomous decisions without seeking counsel and then try to make their position impregnable with the subjective "God is calling me to do it" rationale.

As to situation #1, the family who has a member persisting in unrepented sin as a professing believer, I think a good place to start is Mark 3:33-35 "Jesus said, who are My mother and My brothers? ...whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Or again in Matthew 10:34 "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Jesus redefines our family, and the truly believing family members need to agree with that in principle from the beginning of the conversation.

But I'd need to ask more questions. Is the immediate family member a spouse or an offspring? If he's a spouse with long-standing unrepentance, the situation is thornier, and I'd want to pray a ton and ask the advice of my elders. 1Peter 3:1 may apply if the sinning member is a husband. If the sinning member is a wife, then the husband still has a responsibility to provide food, of course (1Tim 5:8), even he doesn't eat it with her. If this is a 20 year old kid living at home because he refuses to work, kick him out (2Thess 3:10)! If the flagrance and repetitiveness of a gross sin poses a danger to the other members, is there also a social justice element that would need to come into play?

This is tough, but unless you other brothers can prove otherwise, and unless there's a missing fact that would change the situation, it's hard to see how we can ignore 1Cor 5:11 just because it hits us in the family room. But if the church is going to counsel a Christian family this way, then the church also needs to act like a family to them and walk with them through the process, probably through relationships built in a small group environment. This kind of ocounsel would have to come with a committment to fellowship and accountability. Let's not tell someone they can't eat with their spouse and then pat them on the back with a chipper "how's that working out for you?" Invite the spouse to dinner at someone's home occassionally (perhaps provoking the sinning spouse to a right kind of jealousy). Take them out for a meal. Pray with them through it. Love them through it.

Noah Braymen, intern at CHBC, is blogging his way through the Church Growth vs. Gospel Growth conference: a joint effort by 9Marks (a little bit) and Matthias Media (mainly). If you can't make the conference itself, reading his blog will be the next best thing until the mp3s come out.

OK, I've finally shown up. On being God's blessed instrument to tell a brother that he may not be called to vocational ministry when he thinks he is... The wider ministry of the church may help here. If this guy is in a small group, he might have a couple people who are willing to be painfully honest with him.

I'd imagine this is where a regular service review would come in especially handy. It provides a ready made forum for just this kind of conversation. Set aside some time either on Sunday evening or early in the week to constructively critique everything in the service and adult ed hour. Invite everyone who led or taught on Sunday. As our friend has public teaching opportunities, invite him to the review. Encourage where you can, but be lovingly honest with him. As the comments begin to sound graciously but clearly similar, we can pray that our brother will receive the godly criticism in the love with which it is given. This way, he doesn't feel unhelpfully singled out for critique, because everyone is giving it and getting it in the context of that informal gathering. Cultivating an atmosphere of godly criticism and encouragement makes this kind of conversation more normal, less awkward, and more likely to be received well.

If the brother is still not aware, then if I have elders in this situation, I might use them here in a collective way. This would not be to gang up on the poor guy, of course. It would simply be to help him hear the same difficult (but true) thing from multiple godly men. Invite him to ask the other elders estimation of his gifts and calling. If I don't have elders in this situation, I might grab one or two other godly men in the congregation who could serve in a similar way.

October 31st is the last day you can register for Together for the Gospel - 2008 (T4G08) at the Early Bird rate.  Over 2,000 people have already registered and hotels are closing fast.  What else can I say to cause panic in my brethren? :-)  To register go to www.T4G.org and click on 2008 Conference. 

All right, I'll jump in. I understand that the other 48 guys who have access to post on this blog are busy. Whereas Greg, Mike the spiteful Brit, and I seem to have unlimited time.

With respect to #2, I think the way forward is to shoot straight with your brother. If you haven't been fruitful in ministry before you sensed a call, you probably won't suddenly become fruitful just becuase you have a seminary degree or a paid position in a church.

It's also worth investigating why your friend wants to pursue ministry. Most of us don't pursue opportunities to do things that we're not good at (me and my blogging career aside).

1. Does he have an inflated sense of his gifts and fruitfulness? If so, you may have to go to the tape. "Brother, you're a horrendous preacher. Please don't ever do it again under any circumstances." (or something roughly to that effect) may be the nicest thing anyone ever says to him.

2. Does he feel unwarranted guilt over not serving in full-time vocational ministry, as if those who really want to be excellent Christians need to be in paid ministry? If so, it may be helpful to instruct him on vocation.

But, with all that being said, it could be that you're wrong and God plans to do crazy things for the kingdom through this guy. So you've got to approach it with humility and love for your brother.

I have two questions to ask this morning. I'd love to hear your thoughts on either, either "out there" or "in here":

(1) A pastor recently called asking about how the immediate family members of a disciplined individual should treat that family member in light of Paul's command in 1 Corinthians  5:10, "With such a man do not even eat."

What do you think? The person, disciplined for gross unrepentant sin, continues to call him/herself a Christian and has never apologized to the family members. Should the members of the immediate family (also members of the church who voted in favor of the act of discipline) refuse to share the dinner table with the individual? Why or why not? Any further advice for handling this type of situation pastorally?

2) I had lunch with a brother recently who is working through his call to the ministry. Now, I suspect this particular brother is called to the ministry. But the two of us got to thinking, how would you confront an individual attempting to enter vocational ministry (meaning the church would set aside its offering plate dollars to support him) whom you didn't think should, especially if that individual is invoking language of "God's calling me"? And I'm not so much referring here to matters of character qualification, i.e. he lacks integrity. I'm talking about the individual whose heart seems to be in the right place, but he appears to lack of the requisite giftedness or evidence of fruit-bearing. Should we presume to discourage such people when God could in fact plan to use them?

Not in my wildest dreams did I imagine that my fairly prosaic question about elder term limits could go in such an excellent direction.  Well done.

Hey Mike,

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Sadly, I look even worse nowadays. Here's a recent photo of me:

Pastoring has taken its toll!

If one has to imagine I'm from another country to read my posts with a slightly different perspective, with McKinley's all one has to do is go back a few years... maybe to 1995.... ;-)

We had some exciting debates about this when we adopted our constitution, but ended up with a sabbatical after six years (two three-year terms). 

I think Mike's is a good argument for terms, but it doesn't close the case for me.  Yes, because desire and qualifications can change, it makes sense not to make the office permanent. But that's not really the question.  No one's arguing to make it permanent.  The question is whether you should constitutionally force a man to step down from eldership even if desire, qualifications, and recognition have not changed.  In other words, should you have a rule that forces a desiring, qualified, highly esteemed elder to step down from formally leading the congregation, when nobody really wants him to step down? 

Of course you hope there are other men to take his place, and he can still lead the congregation even if he's not in office, etc.  But those are arguments for why term limits aren't a bad idea---not arguments for why they are a good one.

Why is it better to have a rule that a man has to step down, rather than let the whole thing be handled pastorally and prudentially?

BTW, I wouldn't ever want to say a church is recognizing an elder "for life."  Because you're not.  If he steps down or is removed, he won't be an elder anymore.  If he moves away to another city and leaves your church, he won't be an elder anymore---even though he's still alive.  It seems better to me, if you're not going to use terms of some sort, just to say that you're recognizing this guy as an elder for as long as he, the congregation, and ultimately the Lord see fit to allow him to serve. (If you're thinking about how to word a constitution, you just don't say anything at all about terms.  You just say how an elder is recognized, and then you say how he can be removed.)

Does anyone else find it unfair that Mike Gilbart-Smith gets to write with a British accent? I find myself completely agreeing with his arguments, only to realize that it's mostly because I'm hearing his British accent in my head as I read. That immediately makes any point twice as compelling.

My advice, read his posts with the voice of the Swedish Chef in your mind. It makes it a lot easier to think critically.

And Mike, I appreciate your comments about the three criteria for an elder, that's helpful (even in Swedish Chef voce).

Jonathan, a couple of questions have been raised in the comments to your post. One comment has been that since elders are called by the Holy Spirit, a congregation should not make their terms limited, as this would be driven by human rather than divine wisdom.

Let me make a couple of comments.

1) I want to feel the weight of this: we have a 3 year term which can only be renewed up to 6 years before at least a year off. Is this because we fear man, and want to avoid the awkwardness of having to bring a proposal to the congregation that a man be removed from office, rather than just NOT bring a proposal that he be re-nominated. It could be. Or it could be a more loving and gentle way to treat that brother, who isn't being removed for gross sin, but merely for unsuitability, and a more gentle way to treat the congregation.

2) I am not entirely comforatble with using the term "called" for a pastor, as the New Testament doesn't seem to. (the only possible exception being Barnabas in Acts 13:2, which is at an unique point in salvation history - the beginning of the Gentile Mission - and therefore shouldn't be taken as normative)

In the Old Testament prophets were called (Ex 3, 1 sam 3, Is 49, Jer 1 etc.) Priests were called (Heb 5:4).

In the New Testament Apostles were called (Mark 3:13, Rom 1:1, 1 cor 1:1 etc). Every Christian is called (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2, 8-9, 24-26, 7:22; Gal 5:13; Eph 1:18 etc.)

The danger of using the language of 'calling' is that if we are not careful we will import categories from those offices to which there was a verbal audible call. We end up with brothers saying "Well the Lord has called me to be a pastor, whatever this church thinks!" Or, better, we use language of "internal call" and "external call".

But overseers/elders/pastors are not "called." Rather, there are 3 criteria that must be met for someone to be a pastor.

i) They must desire to. (1 Tim 3:1)

ii) They must meet the biblical qualifications. (1 Tim 3, Titus 1, 1 Peter 5)

iii) A congregation must recognise them. (Titus 1:5; Heb 13:17)

Since (i) and (ii) can change, we may be wise in deciding not to make (iii) permanent. We can trust that the Holy Spirit is indeed very much sovereign in using this three-fold test in gifting pastors to the church, just as He has spoken in His word.

At last week's Iowa 9Marks Workshop, someone asked whether our church appoints elders for life.  What do you guys do? What works? What doesn't? Why?

No doubt this is one of the hardest things a pastor has to deal with.  We've had a few situations at our church in Louisville that have been very similar, and to be perfectly honest, none of them has been easy. 

I think Mike's is probably a good idea, but I wonder how many of those things you should mention in a membership interview.  If we listed all the issues that have become "issues" in our church in the past, it would be a very long and very strange list.  I suppose you just have to use your best judgment there---there are some issues that you'd expect to come up more often than others, and those are probably the ones you'd want to mention up-front.

The problem is that you can't predict when something like this is going to erupt in your church.  People often have theological land-mines hidden in their minds, and you just can't know about them until you run over one. In cases like that, I think a strong pastoral hand is essential.  You have to pull that person aside and be absolutely firm that this is not going to become a source of strife in your church. 

That takes a number of pastoral gifts.  For one thing, you can't be paralyzed by indecision about what's really an important issue and what's not.  As with most things, there are qualifications to that, but sometimes discernment has to work quickly, and you have to decide almost immediately whether an issue is a genuinely edifying challenge to believers, or just a distraction and source of division. A 'free exchange of ideas' on every issue that comes up is not always a good idea.   Also, you have to be willing to have hard conversations with people and to tell them firmly that their issue isn't one that's going to occupy your church's time and attention. 

In this pastor's case, I don't think you'd want to tell them not to join the church.  After all, it sounds like it's not a matter that's dealt with in the statement of faith.  But what you can do, I think, is make it clear up-front that you as the pastor do not intend to allow this to become an issue in the church---and even make it clear in whatever way (with words, with a stern look, whatever) that you'll actively oppose any effort to make it an issue.

In a world of strong human desires and cultural trends, pastors must constantly keep abreast of the cultural drifts and ideas that float in the hearts and minds of their congregation.

Since the heart of any relationship is its communication system (e.g., marriage, parenting, friendships, church family, etc.), formative and corrective discipline are the two big tools pastors have to lead and love the church. Practically, this should show itself in 4 specific ways (Aaron, Mike, and Thabiti have all helpfully touched on most of these):

Formative Discipline
1. God’s Word – Christians must always begin with God’s sufficient, inerrant, and clear Word. God is there and he has spoken. Aaron makes this point well in his entry below: pastors should preach scripture powerfully.
2. Clear-Important/Unclear-Important Spectrum - In preaching, pastors should constantly help people discern between matters in scripture that are clear and important and matters that are important but unclear. Thabiti and Mike illustrate this very well in their posts. Clear and important matters may require a strong stand, even at the cost of unity. Unclear and important matters should never lead to church division. Matters that are clear and important (e.g., the truth of the gospel and exclusivity of Christ, the biblical commands for marital fidelity, etc.) are explicitly and plainly revealed in Scripture and are essential to matters of salvation and the witness of the gospel. These issues require faithfulness at all costs since they cannot be compromised without compromising the very gospel itself. Important but unclear matters (e.g., should children only be homeschooled, should the church budget process be this way or another, should women be ushers in communion, etc.) should not divide a church, but rather add to its diversity and witness to the multi-faceted grace of our diverse God and his body (1 Peter 4:10: As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace).
3. Building a culture of biblical communication – To that end, pastors must create a church culture where it is normal for the body to meet together regularly in discipleship relationships, fellowship, and accountability in order to give and receive both godly encouragement and godly constructive criticism in a spirit of love, humility, unity, and purity. This, of course, is a mix of both formative and corrective discipline.

Corrective Discipline
4. Formal church discipline – Lord willing, formative discipline and prayer in such matters will prevent a church from having to employ the blunt but clearly biblical instrument of formal church discipline. Nevertheless, if such issues raise factions and divisions within a church, pastors must be willing to follow the gospel steps of church discipline outlined in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5.

Aaron and Mike, thanks for helpful comments and guidance on a really good question.  This can be a tough issue because many of us are prone to equate some cultural position with the teaching of Scripture, or to argue that said position is the logically necessary outworking of some "biblical principle."  It's funny how often the position is associated with an abstract "biblical principle" rather than clear teaching.  So, Aaron, I'm really thankful for your emphasis on good exposition as an innoculation that undermines "better"/"worse" Christians. 

And Mike, I'm thankful for your example of leadership warding off these issues.  I don't address this kind of thing (alcohol being the exception) in membership interviews, but you've helped me to think about doing that.  And it's really important in this very diverse context. 

You've also brought to mind the importance of leadership (elders) who model charity and unity in non-essential and secondary issues.  As Mark has said on many occassions, a former elder at CHBC, Jim Smith, was great at that.  He had fairly strong views on an important but secondary issue, but was exemplary in how he extended charity to others, avoided prosletyzing in any way, and supported the church's leadership and direction in every way.  It reminds us that it's important in selecting leaders of the church to find men who are likewise committed to the essentials while modeling liberty and charity in secondary issues.

Aaron, thanks for your thoughts. I found them really helpful.

Practically, this is something that is best addressed before the people come into membership. Our church has developed an awesome church culture that commends the gospel, and so I guard it jealously. So in membership interviews, I walk would-be members through that church culture. I tell them the things that we value (love, unity, mutual care, diversity) and the things that aren't important to us as a church (alcohol, tattoos, homeschooling, style of dress). My hope is that people who might cause problems would either self-select out at that point or be prepared for peaceful life in our body.

Once such a person is in the church, all you have is the Word of God and a powerful example (as Aaron mentioned). Make it clear what it means (and doesn't mean) to be a Christian. That should help.

Jonathan asked how a pastor responds to cultural movements that find their way into churches that take the Bible seriously. The simplest and best answer that I know of is for pastors to recognize that their word and example are extremely powerful. Pastors who preach Scripture, emphasize the main points of the text, and avoid hobbyhorses will go a long way to building a church that finds the “better” and “worse” Christian phenomenon distasteful. However, we all have our opinions! So, pastors would be wise to allow for and even encourage diversity in the body without compromising doctrine or holiness. Jesus said disciples, when trained, will be like their teachers (Luke 6:40). Pastors, secure in the saving work of the cross, will not be afraid of cultural movements and will, by God’s grace, build churches that are not upset by these movements either.

Cultural movements do not come into our churches as ideas floating through the air—they come with people. Some individuals, attracted to the expositional preaching of the Bible, may have one or two strident opinions that are at odds with the majority of the church. Their opinions may even be divisive. How should they be shepherded?

First, it is helpful to take their view seriously and, to the best of our ability, to address it (as opposed to dismissing a view because it is militantly held). Second, this is yet another opportunity to lead by example. Proverbs 10:12 reads, “Hatred stirs up strife but love covers all offenses.” It is easy to get flustered and defensive when an aspect of our leadership is called into question. This is not helpful. Modeling Christ-like love and forbearance is always better (though harder!). It is possible, third, that separation is in the best interest of the church and the individuals in question. If the opinions are both deeply held and divisive, it may be that the best way to avoid the start of a big faction is to allow the departure of a small one.

I have a question I'd like to pose based not on an email, but on a phone call received from a pastor several days ago. I'm going to generalize his situation because I think the principles apply in a number of similar situations:

In conservative, theologically minded churches like ours, members or newcomers will sometimes take strong stands on issues that are not directly touched on by the statement of faith. Several examples that I have heard about lately include homeschooling, keeping your children in the service (anti-children's church), biblical counseling vs. psychology, the perennial issue of alcohol, and I'm sure we could all add more to the list. This pastor who called in was troubled by a family who was considering joining his church, but who took a strong, even militant, stand on one such issue; and he was concerned, based on past experience, that they would seek to promote their values in a way that could create a "serious Christian" and "less serious Christian" dichotomy in the church's culture. In spite of Paul's instruction in Colossians 2, it seems we Christians are always trying to create categories for "better" and "worse" Christians based on the basic principles of this world. (I, of course, never do this, and I despise everyone who does!)

Actually, just the opposite is the case. Recently my wife and I heard about a couple who planned to keep their young children with them during the times of corporate gatherings, and we had to talk about the sinful temptation in our hearts to want to do the same in order to prove that "we take family worship seriously too! We're hard core too!" Now, let me say, this couple was NOT trying to prove or promote anything. The problem in this situation was with our own lack of faith in the justifying work of the gospel.

But the question this pastor wanted answered is, how do you respond practically to these various cultural movements that take hold among conservative evangelicals? How do you prevent factions (I know of people leaving and churches dividing over such issues)? How can we shepherd people individually, and how can we shepherd them from the pulpit?

Dr. Al Mohler has an excellent blog today on recovering a bold vision for biblical preaching.

May I simply say that I think the advice given in both the comments under Jonathan's original question from the pastor, and Mike McKinley's answer are wise.  The pastor needs a happy resolve.  He should continue to preach clearly what a Christian is, and also, as has been suggested, the benefits of clear church membership (e.g., enables the church to encourage care and community [all the one another passages], recognize its responsibilities for one another [I John; John 13:34-35], practice church discipline [Mt. 18; I Cor 5-6]).  And certainly be patient.  Allow 6 months to 2 years to transition the church into this healthier place.  Stop admitting anyone without going through the new membership process, and then begin helping those currently attending to regularize their commitment and relations by going through and making the commitment, after instruction and examination.  Probably at the 6, 12, 18 or 24-month period you would want to begin having somethings that are explicitly for members only (like members' meetings).

Jonathan, regrading your question...

It seems like the only way around the problem is straight through it. You could do a mass membership meeting (like some kind of Moonie wedding), but I think it's better to take people in one by one, even if that is time consuming. If you take in a bunch of people without examinging their profession of faith, you've really short-circuited the whole point of meaningful membership. If you bite the bullet now and do this well, it will surely bear a lot of fruit down the road.

Given the constraints described in the email, I'd probably use some time on Sunday morning to teach about membership and explain the process. It's not wise to make a drastic move before you've taught on it well.

The pastor of a 500+ attending church has written asking about how to introduce the practice of membership to his church. They planted 13 years ago and have never had any formal practice of membership. But he has since become convinced of the necessity of membership. He writes,

How do we initiate a membership program when we already have 500+ people who call our church their home?  We've talked about classes on Wednesday night, early Sunday morning (we don't have formal adult Sunday School), or even teaching a four-five week Sunday morning series about membership - but how do we then move forward with actually making people members?  Are we to interview 500+ people?  Do we 'grandfather' in the whole group, and if so, what would be the criteria and procedure?  Do we have a 'mass' membership service to include all those interested?  And if we were to do that, how are we going to monitor whether this mass of people are actually ready for membership?

Thoughts?
 
 

I just received Bruce Waltke's A Theology of the Old Testament and was reading through the portions on Leviticus since I'm teaching that tomorrow in Sunday School. Here's how he concludes his comments on the liturgical aspects of Exodus and Leviticus:

The sacred sites, objects, seasons, personnel, and institutions under the administration of the old covenant are only types of the true reality. Christ fulfills the expectation that there will be one in whom God and man merge in perfect union and provide perfect access into the omnipresent God's unique presence and care. The incarnate Son of God fulfills what the temple always was, a place where infinite merges with the finite to give salvation to the faithful. The Truth said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days," in references to his own body. Since he ascended to heaven, the covenant people no longer face toward Jerusalem, but pray, "Our Father in heaven," and worship in spirit in truth (i.e. in the Reality). Presently God's temple, is the Spirit-indwelt church, both in its individual members and in collective body. Natural humanity despises and seeks to destroy this temple, but the new humanity sees the church as an awesome sight--it is nothing less than the house of God! The consummation of the temple themes, for which the people of God have always hoped, lies in heaven, "the Father's house," from which Christ came and to which he returned to prepare a place for his covenant people, whom the Spirit is preparing to dwell in it. The Father's house, whose glory exceeds human imagination, has plenty of room to accommodate a multitude too numerous to count."

Amen. What a gift Waltke's book appears to be for students of the OT, that is, the church!

I think 1 Corinthians sounds like a good place to go.  You'll be able to preach a strong statement of the gospel and apply it to the life of the church in some very interesting and practical ways.

Another idea would be to do a shorter book that doesn't hit on quite so many things.  Maybe your congregation is ready for a 3-chapter-long consideration of spiritual gifts, the place of tongues, the meaning of prophecy, etc.  But maybe not, too.  If you went to 1 John, for example, you could talk about the outworking of the gospel in our lives, including love for one another, and you'd also be doing a shorter book after two relatively long ones---which can be a good thing.

Any way you go, though, it's all inspired.  Unless you go with McKinley's suggestion and preach Maccabees . . . or the suggestion of a Unitarian church I saw a few days ago that was beginning a series on the songs of Tom Petty.

Matt, I think your #2 is especially helpful and practical.  We've just started "making comments" occasionally upon someone's resignation or transfer to another church.  We don't always do so, but sometimes it's helpful---for example when you want to differentiate between discipline for non-attendance or discipline for scandalous sin, or between accepting a resignation for this or that reason. 

One difference between our practice at 3rd and what it sounds like you're talking about is that we've actually had the congregation formally adopt such "comments."  That takes some work to make sure you're saying just the right thing, but we think there's some benefit to it.

On your 3rd point----why would you be so quick to accept a resignation of someone who has just decided they're not going to attend your church (or any other?) anymore?  I understand that it's a response to exhortation, but it's not the one you really want.  You'd rather them start attending again.  And isn't their non-attendance (especially if they're not attending any other church at all) a breach of the covenant they've made with you?  And shouldn't that open the possibility, at least, of discipline?

(A qualification:  I'm not talking about people who have been on the church rolls for decades.  I'm talking about people who joined the church with a very clear understanding of what was required of them, but then just "dropped out.")

Jonathan,

In response to your friend's question, two words: The Apocrypha.

But supposing that we're limited to canonical sources, I'd say I Corinthians or Ephesians. When I became pastor at Guilford I preached on Mark and then moved on to I Corinthians. Our church was growing and I wanted to lay down the a foundation of the centrality of the gospel and the importance of love in the body. Of course, Ephesians would work well for that also.

I know that Dever has a convoluted system for determining what he preaches next (I never fully grasped it, but I seem to remember it involving a compass, a slide-rule, three mimes, a unicycle and a Burmese street artist). But I tend to prayerfully consider the life and composition of the church and they make a call. So in the past I've been particularly concerned about: a poor understanding of the gospel, a tendency towards legalism, a failure to understand redpemtive history, etc. So I've chosen the books I'm preaching on accordingly.

Well, back to preparing my sermon on the end of Hebrews 4. I'm fifteen minutes into my manuscript and I haven't gotten to the part where I read the text yet. Ouch...

The brother who commented on "nuancing these scenarios to death" is correct.  Please take what I'm about to write as a general response to a general question.  Here are a couple things we've done at Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington (a body of believers that understands and embraces church discipline as a means for our own good):

1. We would almost certianly NOT allow a man to resign his membership in a preemptive fashion in order to avoid discipline if the case involved public, heinous sin. 
2. We have had some scenarios where we allowed a person to resign his/her membership...with comment.  In other words, the elders encouraged the congragation to accept the resignation, but warned the congregation that the former member was in sin or almost certainly going that direction. 
3. If the member is resigning because the leaders of that local church have talked to him about non-attendance, then by all means let the member resign; they are responding to the challenge.
4. If the member is resigning because the leaders of that local church have talked to the person about the lack of evidence of salvation in the person's life, then let the member resign; it is clarifying for the community to see a distinct, holy church that is set apart from the world around it.

We often say that church discipline is practiced for the benefit of three groups:  1) Those in unrepentant sin; 2) The younger believers in the church who would be confused if unrepentant sin went unchallenged and 3) The unbelieving community around the local church looking in. 

When done well, the unrepentant person is biblically called back to a right relationship with Christ and his church, the young believers are rightly taught about the dangers and deceptiveness of sin and the unbelieving community looking in sees a difference between those in the church and those out.

Hope this helps.

I agree with Aaron---in a situation like that, the church ought to refuse to accept the resignation and continue with the process of discipline.

You have to be careful, though.  Churches have been sued over that---and lost.  The law is still somewhat in flux, but all the legal experts I have read seem to think that the way to be safe is to make it absolutely clear up-front that the church has the right to refuse a resignation.  In other words, you need to have a clause in the constitution that explicitly says so, you need to have prospective members read that document and perhaps even sign a statement saying they understand it, and you need to make it clear verbally in a membership interview that merely tendering a resignation does not dissolve one's membership.  The church has the right to refuse that resignation in favor of discipline.

At Third Avenue, we ask every prospective member to sign a statement that says something like, "I have read and understood the church's constitution, especially section blah blah blah," which includes that statement about the church's right to refuse a resignation.

The pastor of a smallish, rural church who is a good friend recently asked this question:

What New Testament book do you think I should preach through next? I've preached through Mark, then Genesis, now I'm considering Romans or 1 Corinthians.

Let me divide his question into two parts: (i) what's your answer to his question; (ii) what criteria would you use to answer his question?

Accountability is—or should—be one of the great advantages of church membership. This usually takes place in one-on-one relationships. I had a great lunch, today, with a brother in Christ. We asked about each other’s lives, wrestled with Scripture, and generally sharpened each other. This is positive church discipline. But there is another kind of discipline, a corporate discipline, which Christians should recognize and practice.

The individual who resigns his membership to avoid being held accountable by the congregation is cutting himself off from the very means God ordained for his own sanctification and, possibly, his salvation (see 1 Cor. 5). This is why I think it is unwise for a church to accept that resignation. Instead, a church ought to lovingly refuse the resignation, proceed with the discipline, and hope that the formal action has its intended effect. The public condemnation of sin (where the leaders give the church the necessary information—no more) plus the action of removing the individual from the membership of the church may be what the Lord uses to save that individual if that lack of repentance points to an unregenerate heart. It may not be, but it may be, which is why the church must act.

There is a silver lining in this trend of people trying to leave churches to avoid discipline. Praise God, it serves as a wonderful reminder for all of us of the importance of making the beauty of membership and the reality of discipline as clear as we can when individuals join our churches.   

I received this question a couple of days ago from a pastor (and it's a question we get quite regularly). As I typically do before posting, I asked him if I could post the question so that he might benefit from several of you. Thoughts?

As we [move toward] church discipline, we find that people [preemptively] leave the church--obviously. They ask for their membership to be removed.  So their name will come before the members at a congregational meeting with them asking to be removed. Now the reason they are asking to be removed is we [the leaders] have called them to account for something. So we aren't excommunicating them, they are excommunicating themselves. How much of this do we [the leaders] lay before the congregation, if any?

Thabiti (and Mark) are of course right in saying that if truly expositional preaching is taking place in the congregation, then the other eight marks (and everything else concerning church health) ought to follow. However, a biblical understanding of the gospel is clearly even more important... if a church has the gospel but no expositional preaching, then you have a church that may quite unhealthy. If you have expositional preaching but not the gospel, then you don't even have a church.

I guess this highlights how these two marks function like the two principles of the reformation: expositional preaching is an outworking of the formal principle of the reformation (sola scriptura - Scripture alone) and a biblical understanding of the gospel is an outworking of the material principle (sola fides - justification by faith alone). Without the formal principle no further reformation will happen, but the material principle is the key thing that must be reformed.

Yep...probably.  In answering this question I'm assuming the non-believing wife is NOT a member of a church and understands herself to be an unbeliever.  In this case, I don't think we would consider long the husband's candidacy.  Why? 

1) One of the ways we evaluate a man's qualifications for elder is by looking into his home.  This particular home would likely NOT function in a deliberately Christian manner.  In other words, the aroma of Christ would be partly there and partly absent in the home. 

2) The man is to live an examplary life, literally be an example to which younger believers can model their own lives.  The difference between a believing husband and an unbelieving wife would strain the model and create a fractured example. 

3) The church puts its own reputation at risk.  It is one thing for one spouse to come to Christ and join a local church.  I think it is all together different for that man then to be named a leader -- the man's associations then come into play. 

We at 9Marks are fond of saying the church must be distinct from the culture; this scenario muddies that desired line of demarcation.

I'm shootin' from the hip here.  I have personally benefited from a plurality of elders in my own local church (have been corrected and informed many times!) and stand open and ready to receive more data and correction.   

I think I agree with the folks in the comment section on the elders' wives question.  The question is posed as if the wife is a problem, but the description sounds pretty good to me.  I'm not sure what's being described there.  Any more background or clarity on the question?

I can't remember if I read this in 9 Marks or if I've heard Mark say it 99 times, but I seem to recall that Mark's assertion is that if you have the first mark, expositional preaching, in place then you're going to have a greater opportunity for seeing the others take shape over time.  If I'm remembering that correctly, that makes expositional preaching pretty foundational and perhaps "necessary and sufficient" for joining with a body. 

It seems that using the entire list of 9 characteristics as a screen for selecting a church may be to leave off the church reform assumptions that they're written in response to.  Perhaps this is an instance where "beginning with the end in mind" is actually a poor way to start.  Perhaps we should start with looking for evidences of God's grace in a local body, and maybe put a premium on a couple of marks (expositional preaching, sound gospel).  Maybe we labor in love and prayer with the other saints to see the Lord grow the other marks, so that the threshold for joining is significantly lower than 7 of 9 marks or something like that.  Perhaps get the preaching right and the gospel and labor for the rest? 

Here's the other thing I've heard a lot around CHBC.  In the why join a church section of the membership matters class, big emphasis is placed on avoiding a consumer mentality and joining a church as a provider.  There might be a subtle way in which turning the 9 marks into a grid for selecting a church (rather than reforming a church) could feed a consumer mentality and dampen the need to approach every church with a heart to provide.  Our gifts are for the common good, for the edification of the body.  While trying hard to avoid the pride that suggests "we have what this church needs," prospective members should be searching for ways to contribute instead of merely receive.

Hey Jonathan,

My first thought for the person trying to find a healthy church is that you're never going to find a perfect church (unless you happen to live in or near Sterling, VA -- in which case our services begin at 10:30 AM). Presuming that circumstances don't permit you to move to a location with a healthy church, you're best off deciding what aspects of a healthy church are most important, and then trying to find the church that most embodies them.

So if you can find a church with sound exegetical preaching, a biblical understanding of conversion, and a clear grasp of the gospel, that's really a pretty good start. From that foundation you can work to bless and love the people there and encourage the church in further growth in health.

Just my thoughts...

Here's another question. Someone wrote asking

We have been searching for a church, but when evaluating churches according to the nine marks none seem to have all nine.  We left an extremely unhealthy church which had very few of the nine marks.  Now we are obviously relunctant to join another church which does not have all the marks of a healthy church. What would you advise?

Thoughts?

Fellas,
A pastor friend recently emailed 9Marks this question. How would you counsel him?

Do you have any insights or resources that discuss the question of an elder candidate who came to know Christ later in his life and who is otherwise qualified biblically but whose wife does not show the marks of regeneration (although she is “religious,” moral, disciplined, supportive – an excellent mother and wife, except in the most important area of spreading a passion for Jesus Christ)?