BY S, RIDOUT
II.
We pass now from the exercise of private care and brotherly oversight to that which is properly discipline by the assembly. As long as the evil is of such a nature that there is hope of recovery from it and the name of the Lord is not being compromised, our private efforts to restore a wandering brother should continue. Indeed, when we have felt no longer able to say aught to him, we may show our concern by withdrawing ourselves from active association with him. "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess. 3:14, 15). Sometimes a little
silent neglect, of which no one but our brother may be aware, may be more effectual than a persistence in verbal admonition to which he turns a deaf ear, especially when such withdrawal is accompanied by tokens of manifest sorrow, together with manifestations of thoughtful love as occasion may offer. Our blessed Lord gave the choicest dainty of the dish to the poor wretch who He knew was planning to betray Him. Surely, if there had been one particle of tenderness in the hard heart of Judas, it must have yielded to such love.
Where one has been constrained to such an attitude of neglect toward his brother, great care should be taken that it is of a private character. Nothing so wounds pride, especially in one who is already away from God in his soul, as being put in the pillory. But the time comes when the evil is of such a nature that love itself and faithfulness to the Lord are constrained to call the attention of the saints to that which no longer responds to private treatment. "Tell it to the Church." The brother's course is now before the Assembly, which is therefore charged with the exercise of the various degrees of discipline required. There may be evident need for correction. The brother's course is manifestly wrong, and yet here too there are limits which Scripture evidently imposes. "Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed:lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee" (Deut. 25:3).
We have here a principle which even under the law guarded against undue severity. How much more should those who know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ temper chastening with mercy!
Assembly discipline may be divided into three general classes:private admonition, public rebuke, and putting away.
The whole spirit of Scripture serves to guide us, rather than isolated proof texts. If the individual is to tell a brother his fault, "between thee and him alone," to gain if possible the brother, the same spirit should mark the assembly in its dealings. This is indeed implied in the words following the passage already quoted:" If he neglect to hear the church." At this point the attitude of the assembly is that of Gal. 6:1, "Ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness." Similarly the apostle writes:" We exhort you brethren, warn them that are unruly."
The private admonition is so closely linked with personal dealing that little need be said of it. The Assembly may be convinced that a brother has laid himself open to this, and charge one or two of their number, sober, godly men of weight, to go to the wrong-doer privately and admonish him on the part of the Assembly. They would warn him that his course is of such a character that it has linked the Lord's name and testimony with it; that they cannot be identified in any way with this, and warn and entreat him to judge himself, to depart from evil. The limits here are obvious. It would not do, for instance, to administer this reproof in public. It would savor of haste and a desire to be rid of an unpleasant subject. Rather, special care should be taken that nothing more is done than to administer the admonition.
We might say here that perhaps some in the Assembly might think that more is needed than this private dealing. They would be in favor of the more public rebuke, or, indeed, insist that the person should be put away at once. Let those who are so inclined remember that they cannot go beyond the conscience of the Assembly. Much harm has been done by the insistence of a few upon an extreme of discipline when others have been convinced that the less severe course should have been adopted. A good surgeon is anxious to spare a limb. Amputation is his last resort.
We will suppose that the private admonition has failed to secure the desired end. Another step is indicated, that of public rebuke. The evil has grown to such a character that none can close their eyes to it. There is every indication that it is going on to something worse. Love now awakens to the need of radical action. If a brother is to be spared the shame and humiliation of a prolonged season of separation from fellowship he must be brought face to face with his wrong. A public rebuke is administered in the presence of the whole Assembly. '' Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear " (i Tim. 5:20). The saints, as gathered to the Lord's name, feeling the holiness of His presence, touched as well by His grace, are compelled, to rebuke the wrong-doer. We would naturally think that the one to administer a rebuke of this kind would be known for his tenderness and gentleness (Phil. 3:18). Limitations naturally suggest themselves here. There should be no display of anger or resentment, nor a manifestation of a pharisaic spirit of self-righteousness. Sorrow surely is becoming those who realize that it is not they but their Lord who has been injured in the house of His friends.
Great care should be taken that in tracing the course of evil from the beginning, no exaggeration should be indulged in, nothing that is not fully substantiated by the facts, which should be presented in such a way that the wrong-doer, instead of showing self-vindication, could only bow in acknowledgment of the righteousness of the rebuke administered, feeling that it fell rather below than beyond what he deserved.
We mention in this connection, with some misgiving, a practice which has obtained among some of the Lord's people, familiarly known as requiring a person to "sit back." Some, indeed, have undertaken to prescribe this without even consulting the Assembly, saying that they would not break bread if such a person were allowed to do so. This is really taking discipline out of the hand of the Assembly and administering it by a private person. The result can only be to lay the Assembly open to the charge of being ruled by a few, and perhaps effectually close the door against what otherwise might have been the beginning of recovery.
As the case grows more hopeless, our care should the more increase. We do not say that there may not be cases in which the Assembly may feel that a brother should be "shut up;" but such cases are rare, and are indicated rather when there is grave suspicion that the evil may be worse than is now known, and which is in a fair way to be brought to light. Thus, a brother who has been reported to be in a course of sin might present himself at a meeting for the breaking of bread. The Assembly could request such a one to refrain from doing so until there had been time to look into his case. We need not say that this should be done with all promptness. But we deprecate making the act of sitting back a grade of discipline.
We come now to the final act of putting away, and ask our readers to notice how much has preceded it. We fear that many of us have offended in this connection. We have neglected so completely the preliminary steps of brotherly care and oversight that the public sin may be attributed in part at least to our neglect, as well as to the wrong-doer. Of course, where evil has become manifest as of such a character that it cannot be borne with, such as is described in the 5th of i Corinthians, but one course is open- " Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." The reason for such an act, however, should be clear. There should be no room for suspicion of mere personal animosity, nor the hint that a party in the Assembly has gained its point.
Evil to be put away must be of such a glaring character that it raises no suspicion in the minds of those who hear of it that undue severity has been used. We may be quite sure that if the common conscience of the saints fails to recognize a course as wicked, those who are seeking to inflict such discipline should ask themselves whether they are not mistaken. Indeed, have we not here one of those safeguards which divine love has given by which God's dear people are entitled to receive the advice and counsel of their brethren ? Much might be said upon this point. We trust that there is no need for us to say more.
A wicked person who is put away is not only refused the right to break bread, but saints must separate themselves from his company; and yet even here there are certain limits, to the discipline which we may suggest. Where the wrong-doer is a member of a Christian household, a husband or brother, it would be a mistake to apply literally the word, "with such a one, no, not to eat." A wife would not thus refuse to sit at the table with her husband under discipline, because to do so would ignore her responsibilities as a wife. She manifests her refusal of fellowship in other ways. It would be mere persecution to insist that she should not continue to perform the proper duties of the household.
We might also mention that when a person has been put out of fellowship, it is well from time to time to see him, in the hope that God is working in his soul, for even putting away has recovery in view.
While upon this subject we add a word as to the corporate features of discipline. We need hardly say that the truth of the oneness of the Body and the endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit requires that all true discipline exercised by one Assembly be accepted and acted upon by all other Assemblies. To fail to do this would be independency of the most glaring character; but this only emphasizes the necessity that the discipline should be such as we have indicated, of a proper and scriptural character.
As already said, if it has been so extreme that it fails to commend itself to the conscience of saints elsewhere, the local gathering may well question whether they have not made a mistake. In such event they should invite the fellowship and the examination of their brethren elsewhere who may have an exercise about what they have done. If we are conscious that we have acted for the Lord, we can be confident that our brethren, in whose spiritual integrity we believe, will, upon acquaintance with the facts, reach the same conclusion with ourselves. We will also, with that self-distrust which goes with true assurance, invite further counsel, and seek the fellowship of those who are equally bound with ourselves by our act of discipline.
Alas, how many of the divisions of the past have resulted from a failure to recognize the principle of which we have just spoken! Extreme acts of discipline have been forced upon the people of God in such a way that they have not been allowed to question the righteousness of those acts, but have been obliged either to bow to them or to retire from fellowship with the Assembly which has exercised the discipline. We need not be more specific here, for, alas, our hearts are sore with the thought of our failures in this direction! We would only ask, Is there not yet a remedy ? Can we not still, in some measure at least, retrace our steps; and if we believe undue severity has been used in disciplinary action, shall we not, in the fear of God and in all simplicity, acknowledge and undo it, so far as we may ?
This most important subject has been thus, in some measure, gone over. In closing, let us press it upon one another in all its various details. May there be an awakening among the saints, a true revival of grace in our hearts, which, while it seeks to carry out all proper discipline, carefully watches the limits which the word of God puts upon each stage; and may we guard ourselves from the dangers which we have pointed out.