Listen in as C. E’Jon Moore, J.F. Arnold, Adrienne Johnston, and Nick Ahern discuss blogger Matthew Paul Turner’s article, “Mark Driscoll’s ‘Gospel Shame’.”
The Christian Manifesto Roundtable Podcast: Church Discipline in the Postmodern World
Gracious Praise. Straight-Forward Critique.
It depends on who is sitting at the round table with you, who is going to administer the discipline, all talk no discipline, check the Eddie Long fiasco on YouTube with the Rabbi, Richard Roberts, drink driving, Benny Hinn, Ray McCauley, and no leaders do anything, we are sick of the leadership in the American church, it’s all about money, leaders intern he’d in a lifestyle and shame how can he be fired and have to sell insurance????????????The church as we now it is finished, God is starting over thank God
Bruce,
Just saw the fiasco with Eddie Long from a few days ago. I’ve been vocally outspoken about his ministry for some time now. I can’t make heads or tails of some of your comment, but I don’t agree that God is starting over. I think man might need to re-evalutate, retool, and readjust. But, I think Christ’s church–his true church, the church invisible–will continue forward. I do agree with you that there is much going on in the realm of Christian leadership today that needs to be addressed and not enough people are doing it. Our question in the podcast discussion centers more around what is the actual authority of leadership, how do we know when there are abuses, can church discipline be meted out in our postmodern world when there are so many more churches today than when Scripture was first inspired, and what does it mean to submit to godly authority? We didn’t arrive at a one singular conclusion in our discussion. We welcome all thoughts on the matter to help us think through all this. Thanks for stopping by!
C. E’Jon Moore
Founder
The Christian Manifesto
My question is if he really sinned (committed actual adultery), what would they have done? Were they going to take him out and shoot him?
I feel there needs to be an understanding for the congregation to know how discipline is going to be handled.
The issue in Cornith with son sleeping with his father’s wife, the church did know what was going on and did nothing about it. That was the issue. The discipline should help the person be better and change his ways. There should be a punishment for sinning but let the punishment fit the crime. How can you help the person be better if you go to such an extreme that they don’t believe they can ever be forgiven by you? If you don’t feel forgiven then why change?
I feel this young man had a repentive heart but the church leaders were going to the extreme in the punishment. Since he came to them wanting to admit his wrong and willingness to change, he already made a BIG step in the right direction. As Adrienne stated he came to the leadership first not the other way around. I think that speaks volumes for where his heart is. With the church’s actions they went into attack mode and maybe hurt this young man’s relationship with church/God forever. Now they will be held accountable for their actions. If this young man was rebellious towards the church, the church would have to take a more aggressive action.
There should have been more nurturing going on with this young man to help him address his sin and what caused him to do it. We sometimes focus on the symptom of the sin and totally miss the whole problem. There should have been counseling for both of them to address the issues and problems. A hospital does not kill the sick person when they come in but treats the sick person the best they can so the person can function again. Sometimes a person is separated from others so others don’t get sick but each case is different.
I have many questions after listening to this, but one of the first ones is why is the Matthew 18 text going entirely unquestioned as a disciplinary guide? The context and text don’t indicate at all that it is such. Next, why is there no questioning of the idea that treating someone like an unbeliever or tax collector involves a complete shunning? The text doesn’t indicate this either. And third, while someone is obligated to the membership agreement that they consented to if they want to retain membership, why in the world would they be in any way obligated to it after renouncing that membership? He wasn’t trying to stay in the church while avoiding discipline, so why would they have any more authority over him, after he refuses both their correction and protection? I’m a little confused why the discussion assumes or avoids these things, as they are some of the most fundamental issues. Perhaps, that is the overall problem- I read Matthew 18, and the scriptures as a whole, and see an entirely different picture of discipline that what seems to be accepted as fact, so even if you quoted that passage in a membership contract, I would be stunned if someone treated me the way Andrew reports being treated.
A.E. Forest,
Thanks for weighing in. I think there will be glaring deficiencies overall because of a desire to keep within a certain timeframe and so that no one voice monopolizes the conversation. I feel like I personally failed in that arena during the conversation, but its our first conversation out of the gates. But, I think you raise an interesting question, but split hairs to some degree. I do believe that Matthew 18 deals with both personal and churchwide confrontation, as both are explicitly mentioned in the text itself. However, I think you’re on to something by suggesting that church discipline isn’t about shunning someone. When we consider how Jesus treated sinners and tax collectors, I see no evidence of shunning, but rather “loving from a distance,” someone who claims Christ yet refuses godly counsel he initially submitted himself to. Unless his sins were particularly egregious, expelling him from the church, even after he has decided to leave, seems like a fruitless endeavor. However, it is difficult in that we don’t let sinners and tax collectors into places of authority and influence in the body. I think, ultimately, church discipline is a two-sided coin. For the “offender,” the loss of community is to lovingly bring them towards a true place of repentance and restitution. If Andrew didn’t care about this to a large degree, none of us would be discussing it. For the church, it is to protect from “leaven spreading through the whole loaf” and to allow us to practice loving rebuke. During the podcast we couldn’t come to a consensus as to whether it should have ever gotten to that point in the first place, but I do feel our conversation was fruitful nonetheless.
Oh! And thanks so much for listening! Hope you’ll come back and listen to more!
C. E’Jon Moore
Founder
The Christian Manifesto
To be clear, my questions weren’t meant as a criticism. It simply struck me, as I listened, that of course we won’t agree on step 3 or 4 of the process, if we didn’t agree on step 1. Likewise, we won’t agree on the application of a scripture, if we don’t agree on the basic message/intent of it. I’m not sure where you felt I was splitting hairs, unless it was on the point of revoking church membership. I must say that is one of the most glaring faults I see on the part of the church in this situation, though. So again, if we don’t agree of the nature of the social contract entered into with church membership, we wouldn’t agree on termination of it. Mostly, just processing still, and trying to understand how we make it better, as the whole body.
I do sometimes wonder about the efficacy of church “membership” and “covenant contracts” to begin with. My church had one and I felt secure enough to sign it. My previous church just felt like in a world of broken people, its just easier to have “Biblical expectations” and walk through life together than it is to “cross the t’s and dot the i’s” in regards to those expectations.
I guess the “splitting hairs” thing for me seemed to surround the idea of Matthew 18 being a disciplinary guide. To me, it seems to be more of a reconciliation guide, but with a disciplinary bent (on the far end). Obviously, it must be taken in conjunction with the other Scriptures. But, this is where I also feel like Matthew 18, indeed the whole of Scripture, is culturally contextualized. The Bible is for all people, in all places, at all times…but I also don’t think its inspired writers foresaw a church with contracts and video and elder boards and whatnot. Then again, Jesus is the one who uttered the words in Matthew 18 and I somehow don’t think he was surprised by any of it.
Like you, Im still mulling over a lot of this.
C. E’Jon Moore
Founder
The Christian Manifesto