Feature One
Recovering The Third Mark
Of The Church
by Art Azurdia

(Continued from Page 2)

In providing an explanation for the effectiveness of united prayer, Jesus supplies a final assurance for those who carry out this ministry of discipline: “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matt. 18:20).  The context necessitates that these “two or three” be understood as the aforementioned witnesses in the disciplinary process.  And here they are promised, in addition to the direct support of God the Father, the manifest presence of God the Son in whose name they have gathered.  When discipline is carried out properly, the church can be assured of the presence of Jesus.

When the disciplinary process becomes a public concern (the arrival at steps three and four) the effect upon the individuals in a congregation can be significant.  In the Christ Community Church assembly, disciplinary concerns are made known on Sunday evenings at the Lord’s Supper.  Whenever such announcements have been made, an overwhelming sense of the holiness of God has pervaded the meeting.  Feelings of humility have been aroused in everyone present as a result of the self-examination that discipline precipitates.  Many have wept at the manifestation of unrepentant sin in the life of a brother.  Most in the congregation would agree that these have been the occasions when the sensible presence of the Lord Jesus Christ has been most readily felt.

The Practical Implications
In the execution of any ministry activity, spiritual leaders ought not to be compelled by expediency but by their allegiance to the Word of God.  Such must be the case with church discipline.  Implicit faithfulness to the Chief Shepherd, who Himself has instituted this ministry, ought to remove all hesitation in one’s commitment to its implementation.  Nevertheless, important practical implications do stem from a faithfulness to this necessary work.

Discipline undergirds the ministry of the Word.  Many Bible-believing churches resoundingly affirm Christlikeness as an essential aim of their fellowships. Faithful pastors share the aspiration of the apostle Paul: “for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin” (2 Co 11:2).  This is made evident as these pastors labor diligently to proclaim righteousness and denounce sin.  However, when their ministry of exposition is not reinforced with personal work much of their efforts can be undermined.

Consider many evangelical churches today.  From their pulpits a message sounds forth:  sin must not be tolerated.  But what happens in these same congregations when over a period of time the apparent intolerance toward sin from the pulpit is combined with an actual tolerance of sin in the lives of people?  The acceptance of a devastating disparity emerges: a disparity between what one believes and how one behaves.  In effect what is communicated is that there is no essential need for consistency between creed and conduct.  Orthodoxy is important only as an affirmational issue.  Whether or not this conclusion is arrived at consciously or unconsciously, it is the logical and inevitable consequence of a ministry that, while faithfully expounding the Scriptures, fails to lovingly confront sin on a personal level.  Stated simply, the authoritative nature of the Word of God is eroded when a congregation is trained to conclude that preaching can, in actuality, be divorced from living.

All who desire to remove discipline or to hinder its restoration, whether they do this deliberately or out of ignorance, are surely contributing to the ultimate dissolution of the church.  For what will happen if each is allowed to do what he pleases?  Yet that would happen, if to the preaching of doctrine there were not added private admonitions, corrections, and other aids of this sort that sustain doctrine and do not let it remain idle.¹

Personal confrontation is essential to the ongoing effectiveness of a faithful pulpit ministry.

Discipline deepens the church’s commitment to self-purification.  Those churches which take up the responsibility to deal with sin according to the New Testament pattern will soon discover that their commitment to this process will actually diminish the need for its implementation.  Consider the words of Jesus:

And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take that speck out of your eye,” and behold, the log is in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye (Matt. 7:3-5).

His point is profoundly clear: confrontation of another must be preceded by self-examination and appropriate repentance and confession if necessary.  A commitment to corporate holiness begins with the self-purification of each person in the congregation.

Paul’s exhortation is similar: “Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).  When a church takes seriously the injunction to confront sin, its very commitment to the process will engender a deeper holiness within the assembly.  It has the beneficial effect of prompting continual self-examination, of reminding all members of their own propensity toward sin, and warning them of its consequences if left unconfessed.

This is also a particularly important consideration for those occupying positions of spiritual leadership.  High profile ministry does not exempt a man from accountability.  Quite to the contrary, the temptations inherent to leadership necessitate it.  Moreover, dealing with unrepentant sin in the life of a spiritual leader will have a remedial effect on the entire leadership of a local congregation.  Speaking of the elders, Paul writes, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning” (1 Ti 5:20; cf. Ga 2:11-14).

One must wonder to what extent a neglect of this ministry has contributed to the moral failure of such a great number of ministers in recent years.  A commitment to biblical discipline promotes a greater purity among the people of God.

A body of soldiers may be said to be well disciplined, not when the court martial is constantly busy in repressing acts of insubordination among them, but when they are so generally observant of the orders of their commander, and all of the military regulations under which they are placed, that there are few such acts to be repressed . . . In like manner, a family may be said to be well disciplined, not when punishment is frequent, but when parental authority is so habitually regarded that the necessity of punishment is rare . . . We may say of a Christian church, that it is well disciplined, not when perpetually engaged in efforts to reclaim offenders, but when there are few offenders to be reclaimed.  That notion of church discipline, which regards it as pertaining entirely, or chiefly, to the settlement of difficulties, and the treatment of cases of delinquency, is altogether too limited.  It takes a far wider range.  It embraces such a judicious administration of the laws of Christ in His visible kingdom, and such a training of His subjects to habits of active obedience, that difficulties and delinquencies shall scarcely be known.²

Discipline reinforces the true nature of body life.  Evangelistic methods which stress “a personal relationship to Jesus” have taken their toll on the church.  The concept of the local church as a living organism has been lost and an atomistic view has taken its place. Gone is the idea that Christians are “one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Ro 12:5).  Church members have little regard for the fact that they are a part of a whole.  When a present-day Christian reads of the chastening of Israel for the sin of one man, Achan (Jos 7), he is horrified at what appears to be gross injustice on the part of Yahweh.  This reaction reveals a failure to grasp the principle of corporate solidarity, a principle which takes on even greater meaning in the New Testament revelation of the body of Christ.

When rebuking the Corinthians for their tolerance of blatant immorality Paul justifies his action by asking rhetorical question, “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?” (1 Co 5:6).  In other words, the power of the influence and effect of sin is significant and extensive, permeating the whole body. The unrepentant sin of an individual affects not only himself but stains the entirety of the assembly.  Accountability then, and even confrontation when necessary, affirms the important fact that members of the body are one with each other.

Click Here to Download Article in PDF Format

1 | 2 | 3 | 4