Feature One
Recovering The Third Mark
Of The Church
by Art Azurdia
(Continued from Page 3)
For this reason the discipline of one church should be respected by other churches. Often it is asked, “Why continue with the disciplinary process if the unrepentant person has already left the church?” While several answers to this question could be forthcoming, it must be said at this point that the body of Christ extends far beyond any one congregation. Therefore, a local fellowship has the duty to other Christian churches not to allow a person to leave its membership in apparent good standing when it is known he is living in sin. To do so is to contribute a defiling influence upon any subsequent fellowship with which the unrepentant person associates.
No Christian church has the right to forsake its responsibilities to other Christian churches. If another church, knowing that a certain person is under discipline, proceeds to receive that person into fellowship, their sin will be upon their own heads. On the other hand, if one church allows an unrepentant sinner to withdraw quietly, and then that person joins another church, the first church (which failed to discipline) is responsible for allowing the corruption of another church.1
New Testament koinonia means that Christians must pray for one another, love one another, serve one another, even weep and rejoice with one another. However, the unity which binds Christians together necessitates an additional kind of mutual ministry. As a result of the leavening influence of unrepentant sin, the nature of the Body of Christ demands that Christians lovingly confront one another as members of the family of God when necessary.
Concluding Comments
It can never be doubted that He who “loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her . . . that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot of wrinkle,” still feels deep interest in her purity. It is for this reason that a recovery of the “third mark of the church” is essential to the work of reformation.
This article has attempted to make clear that Jesus Christ has given direct instructions to His church regarding the implementation of church discipline. He has supplied her with great assurances to attend to this serious work. The practical benefits of this ministry are obvious to the honest student of the New Testament. And most importantly, discipline is nothing less than a manifestation of God’s holiness and love mediated through His people.
How, then, can the church continue to disregard the clear command of her Lord? To neglect so significant a ministry can only result in the church falling into even greater peril. Though numbers expand, the church today is riddled with powerlessness because unrepentant sin reigns in the temple of God. Unless pastors and church leaders awaken to the importance of church discipline, the spiritual slumber of the people of God will deepen. It is for this reason that the discussion of reformation and revival must never omit this indispensable aspect of church life.
I believe the tempter has gained a great victory in getting but one godly pastor of a church to neglect discipline as he has in getting the same pastor to neglect preaching. As the impure used to reproach the diligent by the name of “Puritans,” so do they reproach the faithful pastors by the name of “Disciplinarians.” If only it were understood how much of pastoral authority and work really consist of church guidance. Then there would be so much less prejudice against the proper exercise of discipline. For to be against discipline is to be against the pastoral ministry; and to be against the pastoral ministry is to be against the Church; and to be against the Church is to be against Christ . . . Was not Christ Himself the leader of these Disciplinarians? Did He not institute discipline, and make His ministers the rulers and guides of His church? What would these men have said if they had seen the practice of the ancient church for many centuries after Christ, who exercised a discipline so much more rigorous than any among us do? . . . I know that the word “discipline” has been corrupted by legalism and by such austere impositions as: “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” But it is that ancient and truly Christian discipline which is being contended for here.2
Endnotes
1 Daniel Wray, Biblical Church Discipline (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1981), 15.
2 Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1982), 84.
