First, let me say it's good to be here...finally. (I'm talking about the new house.)

Second, I want to suggest, from Scripture, that Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 5:11 are not necessarily intended to rupture relations within the biological family, though that is precisely what they are intended to do within the spiritual family. Two scriptural lines of thought are relevant.

First, throughout the New Testament, Jesus' call to a family-transcending loyalty notwithstanding, the overarching concern is to preserve the integrity and peace of the natural family for the sake of the gospel. To take just one example: the believing spouse is urged to remain with the unbelieving spouse if possible, for the sake of the unbeliever's salvation. (1 Cor 7:12-14; 1 Pet 3:1-2). The context of 1 Corinthians 7 makes clear that this "living with" includes sexual intimacy, which by anyone's standards surpasses the intimacy of a shared meal. Typically we read these verses assuming the unbeliever has never professed faith, but there's nothing in the text that demands that assumption. Paul's instruction is equally applicable to the believer who's spouse has apostasized. It just doesn't make sense to read Paul to teach in that situation that they can have sex, but not a meal.

We could look at other examples, like Paul's condemnation of those who don't provide for their families, regardless of their status as believers, or the enduring obligation of children to honor their parents, regardless of their status as believers. The point remains the same. In the context of the biological family, such actions of love commend the gospel.

The second line of thought concerns the distinction the New Testament makes between the biological family and the spiritual family. Here, Jesus' question about who is my mother and brother and sister is supremely relevant (Mk 3:33-35). In the Old Covenant, the biological and spiritual families were one and the same, at least to external observation. In the New Covenant, as Jeremiah prophesied (Jer 31:29-34), the automatic, generational link between the biological and spiritual families is severed. Now, as Jesus points out, inclusion in the spiritual family of God is based on spiritual regeneration that produces repentance and faith. This produced all sorts of changes within the administration of the covenant that I don't need to explain to my fellow Baptist Church Matters bloggers.

But one area that perhaps we have not considered fully is the biological family and discipline. In the Old Covenant, if a spouse or child sought to entice you to idolatry, not only were they to be stoned, but you were to cast the first one (Deut. 13:6-12). Originally, it was the father who circumcised his sons (Gen. 17). But in the New Covenant, it is not the biological family that baptizes or exercises church discipline, it's the spiritual family, because spiritual relations are in view.

What does this mean for the wife who's husband has been excommunicated? Unlike most everyone else in their church, sharing a meal with him is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship, but of familial love and duty. She should certainly not treat him as if he were a Christian. But neither of them ever thought toast and coffee in the morning was about that anyway. On the other hand, she should now pray for him, not with him, and she should focus her concern and conversation on his repentance. But surely even that looks different when you're with someone every day than it would for the pastor who bumps into him on the street. Isn't this precisely what Paul and Peter were both getting at? Far from invalidating your marriage or requiring you to engage in 24/7 evangelistic conversation, unbelief in the home and marriage is a unique opportunity for the patient display of love and grace up close and personal.

If I were a particular kind of Presbyterian, who held to a highly objective structure for the covenant family, I could see arguing against table fellowship with an excommunicate inside the family. But as a Baptist and congregationalist, that sort of overlay is precisely what I want to avoid. Not so that I can keep the church out of my living room. But rather to make clear that my living room is not the church. I have obligations to both my biological family and my spiritual family. Sometimes, the same person will be a member of both families, sometimes not. But the obligations endure, and in both cases, they do so for the sake of the gospel.

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.

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?

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.

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.   

Thabiti,

Thank you for the helpful point. I don't mean to suggest that a pastor must do step 1, then step 2, then step 3, and so forth. I'm simply trying to enunciate the broad principle that church discipline only makes sense within the context of a right understanding of the gospel and conversion. How a pastor or elders go about applying that principle will differ--to some measure--from case to case.

I suspect there could be occasions of egregious 1 Cor. 5 type sin that an elder may feel he must act upon, knowing that he will use the opportunity to lead the church through discipline in order to clarify the congregation's understanding of the gospel and conversion. Having said that, he will have a much harder go at it if the church doesn't already understand these things in the first place.

9Marks speaks to a number of pastors who want our advice on how to lead their churches into practicing church discipline. Yet as they describe their churches to us, it sometimes becomes clear that their congregations don't understand basic things like repentance. If your (plural) church doesn't understand repentance, you can expect church discipline will be a reeeal tough sell.

I don't think I'm responding precisely to your question about "how to strike the balance," Thabiti. Maybe the other brothers will jump in. Striking a balance is tough. What do you think?

Jonathan, I appreciate your recent post on the need to lead with teaching before implementing corrective discipline in a local church.  Generally speaking, I think that's good counsel.

But I wonder if it might not be a little too "text book."  Here's what I mean.  Suppose a pastor lands in a church where obvious unrepentant sin is taking place.  And let's assume it's of the 1 Cor. 5 variety, known public and egregious sin like a man sleeping with his father's wife, something not even pagans would do.  Your perhaps new to the church and/or the church has not historically practiced discipline.  In such a situation, brothers, how would this general rule apply?  In other words, what would teaching look like and should/should not/how should a pastor and congregation respond to the situation?

How does one strike a balance between caring for the congregation as a whole by teaching and improving their understanding, responding to the particular spiritual concern of the unrepentant sinner, and the cause of Christ in the eyes of both non-believers who scoff and believers who mourn over such sin? 

For years now, Mark Dever and Matt Schmucker have been telling pastors, “If you want to lead your church to practice biblical church discipline, you have to teach about it first. Use your weekly pulpit, your Sunday School classes, and your church newsletter to teach members about discipline. Hand out books on church discipline to key leaders.” And so on. If you think you can jump right into practicing discipline without teaching about it first, you may want to update your resume first.

Now, let me follow their lead and extend the point. If you want to lead your church to practice biblical church discipline, you have to lead your congregation to a deeper understanding of the gospel and of conversion.

If the members of a church only understand the gospel partially, that is, the gospel as

• “Jesus is the one who fills the God-shaped hole in our hearts,”
• “Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for our lives,”
• “Jesus has come to declare God’s kingdom and make everything new,”
• “God will bless and prosper us if you only believe that he will,”
• “Jesus came to show us how we need to love others,”
• “If you say the sinner’s prayer, you won’t go to hell,”
• “Jesus came to give us purpose and life abundant,”

then the idea of removing someone from the congregation for unrepentant sin is far less likely to make sense to them.

If the members of a church only understand conversion partially, that is, conversion as

• “just believe,”
• “just pray these words after me,”
• “we’re all on a journey,”
• “it’s not about sin-management, it’s about following Jesus,”

Then the idea of removing someone from the congregation for unrepentant sin is far less likely to make sense to them.

In order for the idea of removing someone from the congregation for unrepentant sin to make sense, a congregation will be greatly served by having a deepening grasp of the following aspects of the gospel and conversion:

• Christ came to purchase a people out of sin, so that we will sin no more.
• God calls his people to be holy because he is holy.
• We’ve been baptized into the death of Jesus so that the body of sin might be done away with.
• We’ve been baptized into the death of Jesus so that we might be raised again to new life.
• Through the new covenant, God actually changes people—he gives them new hearts and new desires.
• Christ calls his followers to repent and believe.
• A man cannot serve two masters.
• A house divided against itself will not stand.
• What good is salt that has lost its saltiness? It might as well be thrown out and trampled.
• Only he who perseveres to the end will be saved.
• Belonging to the king of God means that we have new allegiances; we submit to a new master and Lord. We’re not on a journey; we’re called to change allegiances.
• It is time for judgment to begin with the household of God.
• We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to God.
• If anyone says “I love God” but hates his brother, he is a liar.
• This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

I could keep going. But hopefully the point is clear. Church discipline makes sense to a congregation when it understands that the gospel has radical implications for our lives individually and corporately. God doesn’t save people just to save them. He saves them to change them and remake them into his own image. And the changes are part of what give proof to the work of salvation.

Bottom line, pastors: as you’re thinking about leading your church toward the practice of church discipline, assess your congregation’s understanding of the gospel and biblical conversion. Do they get it? If they don’t, you might have more work to do even before you begin to teach on church discipline.

I think the quotes Jonathan found are interesting and helpful.  I will admit that I have found it very tempting to encourage a church to dismiss "to the world."  When a member leaves your church, time and distance tend to strain the relationship, making accountability difficult.  Membership fails to become meaningful and it tempting to argue that it has dissolved in everything but name only.  Nonetheless, I've been convinced that neither time nor distance can simply dissolve membership.

The more I think about it (Greg, you mentioned this the other day and I agree) the more I like the last line of the covenant mentioned in that old church covenant that accompanied the New Hampshire Confession of Faith and that Mark reprinted in his recent book, What is a Healthy Church?  "We we will, when we move from this place, as soon as possible, unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word."

Whether a church has a church covenant with a line like this or not, I think the spirit of it is important to convey up front when a member joins the church.  The elders/pastors of the church are going to shepherd even when you move away and, because that shepherding becomes next-to-impossible when you have moved away, and because the shepherd is still accountable for your soul, and because the congregation is still in covenant to nurture your faith, the church will discipline you--albeit from afar--if it appears that you are not being diligent in finding an evangelical church to join.

In short, this is discipline for non-attendance.  This, I think, is going to sound strange to a lot of evangelical ears.  It has taken me a while to work through it.  But how do you have meaningful membership without it?