Intro
Ah, church discipline. It’s a topic that isn’t popular, and one which most Christians would like to pretend doesn’t exist – or at least we seem to act as though it doesn’t. And the reasons why are varied and sundry and are another topic for another day. What is a topic for right now, however, is a set of self-described “hot-takes” from a 9Marks article, by Dr. Jonathan Leeman dealing with the issues expressed in the Christianity Today podcast series, The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.
Now, I must say, from the bat, that the hot-takes article from 9Marks was decidedly not hot-takey in tone or in content. It was good and said much that is good, true, and helpful. It is certainly worth reading and considering. It is worth wrestling with.
There is, however, one point in the 4 point article where I feel that the author has either gotten such a head of steam that he’s forgotten to prove his points, or he’s so convinced of the rightness of his arguments that he’s taking things for granted that aren’t, in fact, granted. Again, the article was good and worth reading. But Point 4 on who, indeed, has the authority to exercise church discipline is not up to snuff and warrants careful criticism.
Now, for sake of brevity, I’ll assume you’ve read the article, or at least Point 4 and get on with it. His point is this: elders in the church do not have the authority to exercise church discipline, but rather that power is vested in the congregation.
I’d like to address the failures in the author’s logic from 3 primary points: Analogical; Historical; Biblical Theological.
Analogical
He makes an argument that seems to be that elders are like husbands and as husbands do not have authority over their wives to discipline, neither do elders have authority to discipline their congregations. This is an argument by analogy.
First, I want to say that I think that this is a classic category error. The husband-wife relationship is not the same as the relationship between elders and their flocks. Proving that these are 1-1 is something Dr. Leeman never attempts to do. He takes it for granted. And if he doesn’t think they are a 1-1, then why does he use the analogy?
Analogies are useful. And even non 1-1 analogies can be used, I’ll grant, if it can be demonstrated that they are sufficiently similar to warrant the analogy. But Dr. Leeman doesn’t demonstrate this. He doesn’t attempt to. Therefore, I think that it’s entirely invalid as an argument.
Does this mean that you can’t say things in an argument unless you exhaustively prove them? No. Arguments are only possible with axiomata. We have to have “givens” or we end up in the pointless world of deconstruction. But when you make a claim that isn’t either an axiom or a given, then you ought to validate it or it will only be taken seriously by people who already agree with you – or who don’t think it through very closely. Thus, it might be rhetorically useful, but not convincing. And the point of public theology ought to be to convince.
Second, he says husbands have no authority to discipline their wives. Really? What explicit text does he offer to validate this claim? I sincerely doubt most people in the 1st Century would have agreed. Especially in the Hellenistic milieu in which Paul ministered. And the fact that he doesn’t have an explicit verse is significant. Why? Because Dr. Leeman makes the EXACT same argument against elder-discipline later. So, he has to pick one. Either there are no arguments from silence allowed, or we accept arguments from silence, but they have to be weighed and measured against positive arguments. That, to me, seems fair and reasonable.
Wives ARE commanded to submit to their husbands. Indeed, in Ephesians 5, often called Paul’s Haustafel (Household Code) Paul says this:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
So, in this analogy husbands are to wives as Christ is to the Church. Does Christ discipline the Church? Revelation 3:19 has Jesus saying, explicitly, that he does. “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.” Now, you might be saying, but Luke, this is a category error because Jesus isn’t like a husband. Au contraire mon frère…or souer. I’m using a biblical analogy. Are they 1-1? No. But this is the one we have and Paul commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church and Christ clearly states that those whom He loves He disciplines.
I know this rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And that’s OK. I didn’t get into theology to make friends. And in the words of the greatest paper salesman Scranton, PA ever had: “I haven’t.”
Now, you might still disagree – but I would hope that you’d agree that there is more than enough doubt to dismiss this portion of the author’s argument.
Historical
Now, here’s where things get even more interestinger. He readily admits that there are (at least) 3 major forms of church polity. Episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. He lays out the pros and cons of these forms of government, obviously with congregational churches being the best. But that’s an argument from pragmatism. Which is the whole thing he hates (seriously, just read the article if you haven’t).
He doesn’t like pragmatism. But he’s willing to accede to a certain form of church government because it seems the most functional to him. He states this:
Congregationalists push the authority to excommunicate down from the elders to the whole congregation. Presbyterian and episcopalians push it up to the presbytery, general assembly, or bishop.
For my part, not only do I think the downward push to the congregation is more biblical, but if the history of governments has anything to teach us, pushing power downward always does more to keep it in check. See the Federalist Papers. Not only that, but by pushing accountability upward to bishops or presbyteries, you’re pushing it outward to people in other churches, those with far less first-hand knowledge of a church than its own members.
Does pushing discipline down to the people ALWAYS does more to keep “it” in check? I presume that he’s just ignoring the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the BLM/ Antifa riots…with many other historical events – the Meunster Rebellion, maybe? Discipline or punitive authority (more broadly) is not safe and secure in the hands of the mob! The Bible demonstrates clearly that in Ephesus, the people, those safe-havens of discipline, would have torn Paul to shreds had the government NOT intervened. We have clear and unambiguous anti-vigilantism laws in America. We have uniformed policemen..and most nations have some kind of gendarmerie to police the people, and don’t just let people take the law into their own hands. If history has taught us anything it’s that the mob is not the best way to keep things in check. Indeed, many Biblical words for disturb or attack have the root “ὄχλος”, which means “crowd”. The meandering etymology of this word demonstrates the low view that the Hellenistic world had for crowds. Moreover, don’t forget that it was the crowds who shouted “Crucify!”
More than this, the history we read in the Bible shows clearly that God appointed judges over Israel to be in charge of most discipline. Yes, private justice was permitted under the kinsman-redeemer/ blood-avenger system, but the repetitive establishment, by God, of a small group of people who would be in charge of justice seems to speak volumes.
Deuteronomy 28 states:
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Notice how important the city elders are? Does that perhaps seem significant to this conversation? I’d says so! See also Deuteronomy 25:7, as well as the many passages that not only describe the power of elders but also judges, proper.
So, I’d say, that this argument fails to hold water. I have more to say on this point, but for sake of brevity we’ll move on.
Biblical Theological
Lastly, a Biblical Theological argument is needed because he makes a biblical theological case. Specifically he says:
The Bible gives parents, governments, and congregations the power of discipline insofar as it gives all three an enforcement mechanism for ensuring their decisions are obeyed. It gives parents “the rod,” governments “the sword,” and congregations “the keys” for excommunication. But scan your eyes across the pages of Scripture. Can you think of any passage that gives husbands such an enforcement mechanism? You’d better say no. And what about elders—in what passage is their rule is linked to excommunication as explicitly and decisively as the congregation’s (see Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:2,4-5; 2 Cor. 2:6; Gal. 1:9)? I cannot think of one.
Now, let’s look at these passages because this ought to be the real meat of the conversation.
First, Matthew 18 – not just verse 17, which he quotes.
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
So, I agree that the elders do not have an enforcement mechanism explicitly and decisively explicated here. But nobody does! Nobody is given decisive and explicit disciplinary authority. There’s no explanation. What if someone is clearly in destructive, anti-brotherly, church-harming sin and it’s brought to the “church? So what? Note well that we’re all presuming this means the gathered local assembly…should we?…is this anyone who happens to be at this one local body that Sunday? is this members only? Baptized members only? Or could this be a synecdoche (a figure of speech where the whole “church” is used for the part “elders”)? What is the church supposed to do? Vote? Says who? And what do the margins have to be? Jesus doesn’t make this clear. Jesus discusses the result, not the process. So this passage is not useful in his argument, unless you already agree with his interpretation, which is heavy on tradition and light on explicit exegesis.
OK, since Matthew 18 gives us the result, and not the process, what about I Cor 5?
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
So here, Paul, who was an elder, btw, has passed judgment independently of the congregation and commands them to excommunicate him. Literally. The verb for “hand-over” is an imperative. He’s commanding them to carry our Matthew 18. So…I think that this passage actually cuts against his argument. The authority to excommunicate SOMETIMES rests with elders. Now, you might say that this only applies to apostles. In I Tim 1:3, Paul tells Timothy to COMMAND certain men to no longer teach certain doctrines. Timothy was an elder. That’s a kind of punitive and disciplinary authority vested in an elder. You might, then, say that that’s another exception because Paul was an apostle and his command to Timothy for Timothy to command is not repeatable because there are no more apostles. But then we can never repeat any command Paul has given. So, not only does this passage not prove his point it cuts against it.
How’s about 2 Cor 2:6?
5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11 in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.
So, this is referring to the issue in I Cor 5. And the point Dr. Leeman wants to make is that the majority inflicted the punishment, therefore the majority voted? When you say it out loud you can see it doesn’t follow. Literally it says this: “ἱκανὸν τῷ τοιούτῳ ἡ ἐπιτιμία αὕτη ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων,” “sufficient to such [is] the punishment which one [is] from the many”. The punishment does not refer to the decision to punish, Paul already gave that. The punishment refers to the shunning he received from the many…from the many because shunning only works if it’s from the many. There is an internal logic that makes sense of the text as written if we don’t try to force it into a mold that it isn’t made to fit. Again, busted.
OK, so what about Gal 1:9?
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Wait, what? This proves that punishment rests in the congregation? Where? This looks more like Dr. Leeman used the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or a church polity booklet and just copied and pasted the verse links.
Indeed, a further reading of the NT would show Paul in I Cor 5 calling for the church to judge internal matters by establishing judges, John the Apostle is going to exercise discipline on unruly people by elder decree! John calls himself the “elder” in III John!
Conclusion
I don’t want to be overly harsh. Again, the article had many good points. I think it’s worth reading and much if not most of it is worth agreeing with and heeding. But his arguments about elder-led discipline are bad. His point seems to be that corrupt elders can do a lot of damage. True – but corruption in any form of government, including democracies, can be bad.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no perfect form of government because people are imperfect. It’s also true that God consistently creates hierarchical forms of authority that are supposed to be based upon calling, character, and competence. It seems to me that whatever polity best engenders a representative hierarchy of called, competent men of outstanding character and gives them the structural tools necessary to advance the Kingdom is the best one for that situation. If that makes me a pragmatist, OK, I’ll wear that badge – along with everyone else, whether they admit it or not.