re: avoiding discipline
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 completely agree. However, the sad reality is that there are probably legal ramifications if a congregation/pastor actually did that. To refuse the resignation, and then to publicly discuss the issue, would most certainly invite litigation--and the church would be on questionable grounds. An ugly reality.
Not that we shouldn't do it, though...
Posted by: Josh Gelatt | Oct 4, 2007 6:25:00 AM