by Ken Baker
After months of internal wrangling, the denominational pastors board finally reached a decision. Despite the objections of some national pastors, the board approved a young man as national church president. He had recently returned from doctoral studies in the West, and was the most highly educated of all the pastors.
After months of internal wrangling, the denominational pastors board finally reached a decision. Despite the objections of some national pastors, the board approved a young man as national church president. He had recently returned from doctoral studies in the West, and was the most highly educated of all the pastors.
His youth and relative inexperience were not the main objections. Instead, it was the awkward presence of a child he was said to have fathered out of wedlock. Details were murky, and swirling insinuations fueled the confusion. Some believed the pastors had sold out to the prestige of having a prominent theologian and preacher as national president. But, the majority was relieved that the unsubstantiated rumors and politicking were finished. The missionary families working with the national church were in a quandary. Several objecting pastors had enlisted their support, but the church as a whole had taken a different path. What are the missionaries to do?
In another country, a mission agency severed relations with the national church over its failure to discipline a church leader for misappropriating funds. The annual national conference of the association of churches and missions was approaching. This church leader was invited as a speaker. The missionaries from the mission agency would not attend. How should the missionaries from other missions respond?
Most missionaries can relate in some way to these scenarios. Perhaps you are in the midst of something similar now. No doubt you have at some time felt, or are feeling, adrift. Our training courses and seminars seem woefully inadequate when reality hits. Although periodic tension plagues mission-church relations, few of us are well prepared to handle such polarizing conflicts.
The entire realm of church discipline is generally a mine-strewn land where trespassers must beware. Western Christians have rarely experienced solid traditions of biblical discipline. Most often, we issue from churches where cultural individualism tacitly promotes the “live and let live” approach to personal behavior. Or, if discipline is imposed, the offender will probably just find another church community. Many readers are likely aware of at least one incident in their home church, past or present, where only whispering and gossiping took place. Our plethora of churches and denominations encourages anonymity and mobility, which undercut serious attempts at discipline.
In contrast, we have likely witnessed greater attention to church discipline in many of our host cultures. This is often due in large part to a social context which hides few secrets. In some settings the scarcity of churches may invite more scrutiny from local communities.
Disciplinary action in church life more often divides than unifies. Missionaries are commonly caught in the middle or are culturally driven toward one side, and are typically at a loss navigating such tumultuous and unfamiliar waters.
The quandary intensifies most for missionaries when they face situations in which the church seems to ignore sin. Perhaps everyone seems to know what has transpired, but no discipline takes place. What is the appropriate response?
In this article I present biblical principles for church discipline. Then I address the attitudes we should have and the approaches we should take when church discipline seems lacking.
This awkward subject is one in which culture, theology, biblical interpretation and tradition collide. Yet, such sensitive matters often ferret out the deep-seated prejudices that chronically block our efforts toward true unity, trust and partnership.
BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES
The following biblical principles will help us develop godly approaches that are culturally sensitive for dealing with disciplinary issues in local churches.
1. Church discipline takes place within the church body. A direct, personal relationship already exists there between the offender and the local believers who are aware of the person’s life. Those who have this relationship must take initiative to confront offenders (1 Cor. 5:9-13, Matt. 18:15-19).
2. Personal and accurate knowledge of the offense (and the offender) is a prerequisite for action (1 Tim. 5:19-20, Matt. 18:15-17).
The absence of relationship limits an active role. Church discipline should be based on personal knowledge of offenders and offenses, not hearsay. In one case a few years ago, many missionaries were criticizing and gossiping about a national brother. Ironically, many of those who were most upset about his behavior could not pick him out of a crowd; they had never met or even seen him! Assumptions based on reputation are dangerous. Unless we are vigilant, we can easily be caught in a web of rumor and innuendo based on hearsay.
3. The proper biblical attitude and motivation is love not anger, and the goal is restoration not revenge (Gal. 6:1, 2 Cor. 2:5-8).
4. Confrontation is the first step in the process of restoration in the church community (Matt. 18:15-17). We must note that “confronting” has various cultural expressions. Sin needs to be addressed, but how we address it depends on our particular context. We must seek the Spirit’s leading. Confrontation is firm (truthful), but gentle and loving (cf. 1 Thess. 2: 1-12). We must remember that we are recipients of infinite grace and forgiveness. If we do not forgive according to the forgiveness we have received, we disobey.
5. Willful refusal to repent leads those in the church body to disassociate (“have nothing to do with” or “do not eat with”) from the person until he or she repents (1 Cor. 5:9-13, 2 Thess. 3:14-15).
6. The aim of church discipline is to restore the offender and warn the rest of the body (Gal. 6:1, 1 Tim. 5:19-20).
Reject the “Jonah syndrome” in which pleasure in judgment, rather than love, is the driving force for discipline. Disassociation comes only after attempts at correction have run their course. Furthermore, disassociation does not mean that the person becomes an enemy of the church. Restoration remains the goal, but separation is vital to this process, for it emphasizes the consequence of unrepentant sin in the body.
7. Discipline becomes increasingly public within the church community until the desired goal is achieved (Matt. 18:15-17).
Public airing of offenses should be done only with the approval of church leadership; otherwise it is gossip. Occasionally, and perhaps often, what appears to be inactivity may also be prudence on the part of church or mission leaders. Transparency, if appropriate, can promote trust.
Not long ago, some missionaries were upset when it seemed the mission was doing nothing to address a certain situation. In reality, the mission leadership was in dialogue with church leaders about that situation and about two others. Of course, the concerned missionaries were not aware of the two other problems, and rightly so.
8. Church leaders have a higher standard of accountability, but so do their accusers (1 Tim. 5:19-20).
The higher the heads stick up, the easier a target they become. However, the New Testament proscribes at least two or three witnesses when a charge is brought against a leader. These should be witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the situation, not just suspicions.
SPECIFIC CAUTIONS FOR MISSIONARIES
Missionaries are always guests in their locations of service. Several cautions will help us wrestle more effectively with the thorny issues that come with church discipline in cross-cultural settings.
1. Though we are in the body of Christ, our organizations are not churches; we cannot assume their role.
2. We can’t assume that we are biblically pure. Our own cultural blind spots may be offensive to national believers and churches—and to our Lord. For example, an independent spirit, reluctance to share and give our possessions, cultural/racial superiority, obsessive task-orientedness, unloving attitudes and even democratic structures can offend the sensibilities of Christians in our host cultures. Our Lord said something about removing the “logs” from our own eyes (Matt. 7:3-5).
3. On what basis do we contemplate rejecting what the national churches accept? If church members, and/or leaders accept explanations and apologies are we to presume a superior position in judging their validity?
4. For his sovereign reasons, our Lord sometimes ordained that impure persons remain within the believing community, as seen in his parable of allowing the tares to remain among the wheat (Matt. 13:24-30). I am not advocating a strategy of ignoring sin, but at times it is not possible or appropriate to address certain issues.
5. Too often our personal relationships with local churches are marginal. As a result, the trust we need to address sinfulness is absent. Given this reality, from where do we get our information about supposed offenses? Whom do we believe? We must remember that in some cultures, relationship plays a dominant role in conflict, whereas in other contexts, truth tends to rise above relationship. We must not lose sight of how cultural values effect our perception of reality.
We missionaries commonly fall into a “herd” mentality. The national church in a colleague’s country had divided along tribal lines over leadership in the Christian Education department. The issue of qualifications seemed to be secondary to ethnic solidarity. When I asked him how the other missionaries felt, he replied, “Oh, we’re all united on this one.” Amused, I asked, “So, what is the basis of your solidarity?” How often are we oblivious to our own missionary tribalism?
6. Assumption is the mother of misunderstanding. When we presume to clearly see “truth” we are assuming an omniscience that will inevitably lead to peril. Instead, we must trust in the Spirit to lead all parties to God’s will. Do we really believe he is providentially orchestrating the outcome? We have much to learn from our national hosts in this regard.
Several years ago, I saw a group of church leaders handle a potentially devastating situation. The youngest, newest elder, was promoting a form or style of prayer as more spiritual than any other. He went from family to family, cajoling and politicking each household to agree with him. Then he tried to pressure the elders into making this style the church standard.
When confronted by the dean of the elder board, the dissenting elder admitted only to “teaching and counseling” church members. A growing climate of tension and suspicion reigned. The head elder wisely brought the issue before the leaders group, not to discuss the merits of particular prayer traditions, but to point out the danger of division. Ultimately, the issue was not prayer, but unity.
Instead of splitting, the church was strengthened through identifying the real culprit behind the politics. This younger leader was encouraged to learn the dangers of bringing worldly methods into the church.
CHALLENGES TO DISCIPLINE
Obviously, we have many challenges to overcome when contemplating the task of addressing a discipline issue. Missionaries are understandably reluctant to get involved. Lack of faith, fear of losing hard-won gains, dreading the messiness of accountability or fear of rejection may keep us from getting involved.
Given these challenges, we can be tempted to avoid a discipline matter altogether. Scripture does not offer this option, however. The way we approach church discipline is crucial. In fact, how we do something often has more lasting impact than what we do.
After returning from an extended trip, my wife and I learned of a sharp conflict between two church families. I resisted the temptation to gather what happened through piecemeal gossip. Instead, I wanted to learn the details directly from those involved. I wasn’t confident that my language ability could absorb the whole picture, so I took another leader with me who could explain things in French as needed.
Big mistake. Although my intent was purely practical clarity, one couple viewed my action as a lack of trust. I was interested in accuracy, but they perceived me as choosing sides and doubting their word. My motive was truth, but my actions implied suspicion. It was a costly error, as it took two years to regain the trust I lost that day.
Personality, gifting and experience are also integral to the discipline process. Certain personality traits do not readily lend themselves to the sensitive task of church discipline. Likewise, each situation is different, calling for either exhortation or mercy. Pressing for accountability is a delicate pursuit and some people are better at it than others. I am reminded of a mission director who was able to say hard things in a most gentle, disarming manner. His love never let up, despite the issues involved.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is knowing when to speak up, when to wait and when to let it go. We shouldn’t wade into the fray without much prayer and counsel. A few years ago, after much soul searching, counsel and prayer, a missionary with our organization stood on his convictions and confronted a church leader regarding a sin that biblically disqualified him for leadership. He had worked for years with this leader. The missionary was criticized more than supported, even by his colleagues. Yet he stood on principle and was content to live with the consequences, regardless of personal gain, threats to family and lack of organizational support. Time has proven his wisdom and courage, as well as repaired his reputation.
MISSION RESPONSIBILITY
Bearing in mind the above cautions and challenges, we still face the question of how to respond when church discipline is not forthcoming. This sticky issue is an area that requires great care. Unfortunately, we often draw hasty conclusions and act on the basis of assumptions. The truth is, we may tend to be smug, believing that we are more pleasing in God’s sight than our national church brothers and sisters. We believe we would do or be better if we were in their situation. Is it possible that we consider Jesus’ “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22) response too permissive? Isn’t our goal repentance and restoration? We must look at God’s approach in bringing repentance: “Do you think lightly of the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4).
I am not advocating that we ignore sin. Rather, I am encouraging us to carefully examine our reference point. Far too often, we are not in daily, personal, shoulder-to-shoulder relationship with our national brothers and sisters in life and ministry. This reality not only limits our understanding, but it alienates us from opportunities to learn and influence.
When we look at Paul’s ministry, we see biblical support for the role of the church planter in the discipline process. Paul asserts, particularly with the Corinthian and Galatian churches, his apostolic authority. He indicates that he has already dealt with a very troublesome case (1 Cor. 5:3). On the other hand, Paul was constantly in relationship with the churches, and he was recognized as having spiritual authority over the churches he planted. As in Paul’s experience, the Spirit may give a specific directive for confronting a situation in the absence of personal relationship, but this is definitely more the exception than the rule.
Following Paul’s example, missionaries can have a role of spiritual counselor/teacher in a host church context, but only after we have established significant personal relationships. Likewise, our hosts also have the spiritual role to counsel and rebuke us when we sin against them. However, one of the greatest quandaries is recognizing when we have enough of a relationship to weigh in on a discipline issue. Such situations are rife with confusion, anger, misunderstanding and are generally very stressful.
In addition, we must not lose sight of the cautions and limitations which significantly impact our role within the cross-cultural context. Maintaining this balance is our great challenge.
In summary, when it comes to a discipline issue, do not proceed without considerable prayer and counsel; do not assume a confrontational role without personal knowledge of the person and facts; be honest about motives and circumspect in approach. The bottom line is relationship and providing an environment in which the local church can make mature, responsible decisions.
—–
Ken Baker has spent the last 24 years church-planting and mentoring leaders in Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire and Niger.
Copyright © 2005 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.
