When should church discipline be applied? How to properly rebuke sin?

Most disciplinary action in a local church should occur in the context of normal weekday relationships, Monday through Saturday. This does not mean that the church should become a place where everyone is constantly correcting each other. That would be an intolerable atmosphere. However, it is about creating a community that strives for godliness. In such a church, members do not hide from criticism but, on the contrary, seek it out themselves, as they seek spiritual growth.

«"Hey, Ryan, do you have any comments about how I conducted that meeting? What could I have done better?"»

«"Zach, I want you to always be honest with me about my marriage and how much I truly love my wife. My sinful nature doesn't want that at all, but... have you noticed anything in my parenting that needs to change?"»

Some divide church discipline into two categories: formative and corrective. Formative discipline means teaching, and corrective discipline means correcting mistakes. However, these two types of discipline are always intertwined. It is impossible to fully teach without correction, and vice versa. In the life of the church, discipline as teaching and as correction should be characteristic not only of Sunday, but also of weekdays.

Discipline is, in fact, an integral part of the discipleship process. When should discipleship and discipline take place? All week long. That's the answer.

A more difficult question

But here's a more difficult question: when to move to the next stage of church discipline—from private conversation and rebuke to a conversation with two or three witnesses, or from a conversation with several witnesses to involving the entire church?

There is no simple formula for this. Each case must be evaluated individually. For example, there have been situations where our ministers did not see the need to work on a problem for a long time, and there have been other cases where we have worked for months or even years without deciding to take the matter to the next level.

This often happens when the people involved are working with us to deal with their sin. I recall our pastors’ council working with a couple for four or even five years. During that time, the pastors who had initiated the counseling process left the council because their terms had expired, and new pastors came on board and needed to be briefed. This rotation occurred several times as the couple struggled with their difficulties. Neither of them was ever publicly excommunicated.

A slightly simpler question

Here's a question that's a little easier to answer—at least theoretically: What sins require public exposure and excommunication?

Older generations of writers often created lists of sins based on Scripture, such as in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6:

«But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or an extortioner» (1 Cor. 5:11).

But if we stick to these lists alone, does that mean we should excommunicate greedy people but not embezzlers? Robbers but not murderers or pedophiles? After all, crimes such as theft, murder, and pedophilia are not mentioned in these lists.

Obviously, these lists are not to be taken as exhaustive. Paul is describing here the types of sins that are characteristic of people who remain unbelieving and unrepentant (see 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

So the short answer to this question is: Only sins that are outward, significant, and unrepentant require public exposure and excommunication. The sin must meet all three criteria, not just one or two.

(i) The sin must be external.

First, it must be a sin that can be seen or heard. It cannot be something that may be hidden in a person’s heart. Paul mentions greed in his list, but it is wrong to accuse someone of it without external evidence. If even the secular judicial system carefully weighs the evidence, should the church be any less careful? Jesus is not interested in mob justice and arbitrariness.

But note: I am talking about «external,» not necessarily «public.» For example, fornication is not a public sin, but a private one. But it remains external because it is concrete and visible.

(ii) The sin must be significant

Conditions such as anxiety, fear, or stress can be sinful. But they are not grounds for public reprimand or excommunication.

For example, if I notice that a brother is embellishing the truth in his story, but he denies it, that could be a sin. But I will not bring it up publicly. Peter reminds us, «Love covers a multitude of sins» (1 Pet. 4:8). One of the main signs of a healthy church is a willingness to forgive and overlook many, if not most, of the sins we observe in our brothers and sisters.

What then is considered a significant sin? It is a sin that calls into question whether a person is truly a bearer of the Spirit of God and a Christian, especially if he refuses to repent. Remember that church membership is the Church’s confirmation of a person’s profession of faith in Christ. A significant sin is one that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to publicly affirm the truth of that profession of faith. I can, in good conscience, affirm the faith of a person who denies exaggeration in his story. But I cannot do this for one who stubbornly continues in fornication, verbal abuse, drunkenness, etc.

Is the criterion of «significance» somewhat subjective? Yes. That is why the same sin in one situation may require excommunication and not in another, depending on the circumstances. It would be much easier if Scripture gave us precise instructions for each situation. But the Lord calls us to seek His wisdom and to walk by faith. This is another reason why churches should strive to train as many ministers as possible. It is important that difficult issues not be resolved by one or two people before they are presented to the church.

(iii) The sin must be unrepentant.

The sinner must be exposed in his sin. Man has been confronted with his sin. And whether he admits it is sin or not, and whether he says he will stop, man ultimately refuses to leave it; he keeps returning to sin. He cannot (or will not) be separated from it, like a fool from his folly.

How should we treat sin?

There were times when Jesus turned tables in anger. There were times when the apostles publicly used harsh words when addressing individuals (think of Peter and Simon Magus in Acts 8 or Paul in 1 Corinthians 5). And there may be rare occasions when your correction of a brother or sister needs to be extremely harsh.

But in most cases, your attitude towards corrections or questions should correspond to the following characteristics:

• Sensitivity: The development of events in Matthew 18 indicates that the circle of people involved should be kept as small as possible.
• Grace: Paul says we should restore people «in a spirit of gentleness» (Gal. 6:1).
• Vigilance: In the same verse, Paul adds: «Each one should keep an eye on himself, lest he also fall into temptation.» Jude agrees: «Have mercy on one another with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.» (Jude 1:23) Sin is insidious. It is easy to fall into the trap, even when trying to help others.
• Mercy: Jude says this twice: «be merciful» and «be merciful.» (Jude 1:22, 23) Your tone should be merciful and understanding, not smug, if you never fall into the same trap.
• Impartiality: We should not prejudge but work to hear both sides of the story (see 1 Tim. 5:21).
• Clarity: Being passive-aggressive or sarcastic is definitely inappropriate because it only serves to protect yourself. You must be willing to show your vulnerability by being very clear, especially if you are asking the person in sin to be vulnerable in order to confess and repent of the sin. Sometimes being vague can serve the purpose of gentleness and help the person open up on their own. But this should not be at the expense of clarity. The wider the circle, the clearer your position should be. After all, a little leaven spoils the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6). People need to be warned.
• Firmness: When moving to the final stage of discipline—excommunication or expulsion—the church’s action should be firm: «Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump» (1 Cor. 5:7); «A man who is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject» (Titus 3:10). It should be clear that the person is no longer a member of the church and has no access to the Lord’s Supper.

Wisdom is always needed in matters of correction, because no two situations are the same. It is easy to say, «This is what we did in this case.» While there is much to be learned from previous experience, ultimately we must rely on the principles of God’s Word, the guidance of His Spirit, and carefully consider the specifics and individual characteristics of each situation.

Editor's Note: This article is an adapted excerpt from Jonathan Liman's new book: Understanding Church Discipline (B&H, 2016).