Church Discipline a Means of Grace

Church Discipline a Means of Grace in Scottish Reformed Theology

The Sum of Saving Knowledge is a sadly neglected work by David Dickson, the Scottish  theologian and professor of divinity at both Glasgow and, later,  Edinburgh. To give its full title:

The Sum of Saving Knowledge: or, A Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine, Contained in the Holy Scriptures, and Holden Forth in the Foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms; Together with the Practical Use Thereof.

http://freechurch.org/assets/documents/2014/Sum%20of%20Saving%20Knowledge%201650.pdf

In one section, Head 3, Dickson discusses the means of grace.  This is what he writes:

HEAD III. The Outward Means Appointed to Make the Elect Partakers of This Covenant

THE outward means and ordinances, for making men partakers of the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them; and the reprobate, among whom they are, not to be justly stumbled: The means are especially these four. 1. The word of God. 2. The sacraments. 3. Kirk-government. 4. Prayer. In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By kirk-government, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant. And by prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and employed. All which means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers.

Dickson clearly identifies what he calls “kirk-government” as a means of grace; by kirk-government he means the regular discipline of the church.  We are used to seeing church discipline listed among the marks of the church, but Dickson goes beyond that to assert that it is a positive means of grace, especially for a true believer who may fall into sin.

John MacPherson, whose fine commentary on the Sum of Saving Knowledge is invaluable, takes up this theme of discipline as a means of grace in his own Church Dogmatics (1898):

“The exercise of discipline in the widest sense of the term is the special function for the discharge of which the Christian Church exists. The preaching of the word and the dispensation of ordinances in the communion of saints have in view the spiritual culture of the individuals composing that communion, and the discipline of their lives in self-denial and the love of God. Hence it was from the very first recognised as the duty of the Church as an organisation to exercise discipline over its members in order that this spiritual culture might be secured. The potestas ecclesiastica is really the power belonging to Christ, but conferred by Him upon His Church. From Christ also is the appointment of Church officers, who, under Christ's commission, represent the Church, and in the name of Christ exercise the functions, the discharge of which Christ has committed to it. Hence the power of the keys belongs to the office-bearers of the Church, not as a sacerdotium coming in as a mediating order between Christ and believers, but as a ministerium serving under Christ and representing Him in His service...

The disciplina ecclesiastica is, according to the Reformed doctrine, one of the notes of the Church, by means of which, in conjunction with the preaching of the word and the dispensation of the sacraments, the spiritual health and well-being of the community is secured and maintained. For this purpose, in the Reformed order of Church government, there are elders or presbyters, as well as pastors and preachers, on whom the duty of carrying out this discipline is specially laid.

The purpose of Church discipline is twofold: the immediate spiritual good of the individual member dealt with, and the general spiritual culture of the community. 

The judgement passed on the individual had in view the saving of that individual from condemnation in the final judgement (1 Cor. V. 5). That this is a principal purpose in the exercise of discipline is also shown by the detailed instruction given by Christ to His disciples as to the gradual patient way in which He would have them proceed in dealing with an offending brother (Matt, xviii. 15-17). If by private exhortation and remonstrance he can be convinced of his fault, so that he repents of it and forsakes it, the latter is gained, the object is secured in his penitence, which is his salvation.

But even in the case of his stubborn refusal to acknowledge his fault and repent of it, rendering an appeal to the judgement of the Church necessary, and ending in exclusion from its membership, the offender is to be treated as an outsider in order that a yearning after lost privileges may be awakened in him, and a spirit of repentance and faith developed within him, which shall bring the wanderer back. He has been put out because his conduct and spirit showed that he was not really within; and if in no other way he can be made to see that he is really without, public exclusion must be tried as a means of showing him this. But besides the benefit thus contemplated in the case of the individual dealt with by discipline, the advantage of the whole community is considered in the exercise of this Church function.

It is essential to the very existence of the Church, that it should hold up a high standard of moral excellence before its own members and before the world. Laxity of discipline implies the absence of any keen appreciation of holiness and righteousness in the life; and failure to understand that life in the Church as distinguished from life in the world is the imitation of Christ in accordance with the holy perfection of God Himself. Hence carelessness in the discharge of this duty is injurious alike to the spiritual life of the members of the Church, and to the influence of the Church as a missionary agency in the world."

There is therefore a two-fold charge against any denomination that no longer exercises biblical church discipline – it lacks an essential mark of the true Church and is therefore a false church; it wilfully deprives the people of God individually and collectively of one of God’s appointed means of grace and is therefore a cruel church.

Get This Book – A Must Read

Get This Book – A Must Read

The Banner of Truth has kindly made available a number of chapters from the forthcoming book, “A Sad Departure – Why We Could Not Stay in the Church of Scotland” by David J Randall.

The foreword  by Sinclair Ferguson and introduction are available on the USA site:

https://banneroftruth.org/media/flippingbook/SadDeparture/saddeparture.html#13/z

The Appendix containing the stories of ministers and churches is available on the UK site:

https://banneroftruth.org/uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Sad-Departure_Full-Appendix-for-Website.pdf

I will do a full review when the book is published, but the appendix is explosive!  This collection of testimonies shows in many cases the duplicity of a denomination which is more concerned at preserving property and raiding funds than in maintain a biblical witness or supporting biblical morality.  Various testimonies are given of the underhand conduct and lack of integrity in the denomination.  More disturbingly, the testimonies are a record of a spineless and prevaricating response by many professed evangelicals who prioritise their own security and comfort and the maintenance of denominational loyalty over obedience to Scripture.

These testimonies span a rich variety of ministerial statuses, from newly ordained preachers to retired pastors, from those who laboured for years in the hope of reformation to those who realised almost immediately after their ordination that biblical change would not be forthcoming.  Some were firm denominational loyalists who saw that ultimately they were being played and that the reward for loyalty was betrayal. For all there was great cost and sacrifice involved; none say they regret the decision they have made.

It is possible that every testimony in this book is untrue, that a diverse collection of men and churches simply made up a record of denominational unfaithfulness  to Scripture,  avarice and dishonesty – but is that likely?  More likely is that the common tale comes from a common experience of the Machiavellian manipulation of a denomination that has abandoned Scripture and wishes to crush those who dissent and leave.

I look forward to reading the full book with its historical account and exegetical defence – but sadly doubt that those who should be, will be persuaded. “None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.“ Matthew Henry

Robert Murray McCheyne on Biblical Church Discipline

Robert Murray McCheyne on Biblical Church Discipline

This extract from Memoirs and Remains was quoted at the 9Marks Conference on Church discipline.  I was unfamiliar with this passage, but it does address the current situation in evangelical church life in Scotland:

“When I first entered upon the work of the ministry among you, I was exceedingly ignorant of the vast importance of church discipline. I thought that my great and almost only work was to pray and preach. I saw your souls to be so precious, and the time so short, that I devoted all my time, and care, and strength, to labour in word and doctrine. When cases of discipline were brought before me and the elders, I regarded them with something like abhorrence. It was a duty I shrank from; and I may truly say it nearly drove me from the work of the ministry among you altogether. But it pleased God, who teaches His servants in another way than man teaches, to bless some of the cases of discipline to the manifest and undeniable conversion of the souls of those under our care; and from that hour a new light broke in upon my mind, and I saw that if preaching be an ordinance of Christ, so is church discipline. I now feel very deeply persuaded that both are of God—that two keys are committed to us by Christ: the one the key of doctrine, by means of which we unlock the treasures of the Bible; the other the key of discipline, by which we open or shut the way to the sealing ordinances of the faith. Both are Christ’s gifts, and neither is to be resigned without sin.”

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (5)

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (5)

In 1995 I produced a small booklet on biblical separation. This is the fourth extract from that booklet:

Acts 20:28-31

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.

Paul’s warning to the elders at Ephesus is repeated later in his letter to the Ephesians, (see later entry), and is also reinforced by the commendation of the church in Ephesus in Revelation for its intolerance towards false teaching. Paul warns the Ephesian elders of the danger from within, the rise of certain teachers who will distort the truth. The elders were to guard against these wolves. Is it conceivable that Paul would have the Ephesian church recognise these savage wolves as “brothers in Christ”, accept their right to hold office within the Church, and publicly unite with them in visible fellowship? Is not the whole purpose of being on their guard that they might protect and defend the flock by identifying and excluding such wolves? When evangelicals report that some presbytery meetings are like a wolf pack convention then something is far from right.  

Romans 16:17, 18

17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

Paul warns against those who cause divisions by their teaching or are acting in ways contrary to apostolic truth. These men are skillful in their presentation of error, so much so that some naïve individuals might be swayed by their teaching and heresy. Is it conceivable that Paul would give these men the opportunity to spread their errors by word or writing? No – Paul tells the church to keep away from them and “avoid them”. That is, he asks them to maintain a separation from those who do not maintain apostolic teaching. Can you keep away from and avoid those to whom you offer denominational recognition, and under whose collective authority you place yourself? Is not denominational acceptance of such individuals a direct act of disobedience to the apostolic instruction and the command that we avoid them?

Note 2015: When I look back to how I managed to avoid the clear implications of these verses prior to 1995, I am amazed that I was so willfully blind. The professed evangelicals who now say that though they disagree with false teaching, they will not separate from false teachers, are denying the very Scripture on which they claim to base their case.  They need to show exegetically why these verses do not apply to the situation in the Church of Scotland today.

Church Discipline

Church Discipline

A timely reminder of the importance of Church discipline can be found by listening to the recent 9Marks conference held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  The speakers were not all Baptists: Danny Akin, Mark Dever, Garrett Kell, Thabiti Anyabwile, Mez McConnell (from Edinburgh) and Ligon Duncan all spoke. Dr Duncan of Reformed Theological Seminary brought the conference to a conclusion by highlighting how church discipline brings congregational unity.

Presbyterians in Scotland are all at sea when it comes to the biblical basis and value of church discipline, some belonging to bodies that have long since ceased to discipline those who teach false doctrine or engage in sexual immorality.  These addresses show how important church discipline, faithfully and lovingly applied, is to the well being of the Church.  Indeed, it is one of the essential marks of the true church.

The videos of the sessions are available at

http://www.sebts.edu/news-resources/conferences/9marks/default.aspx

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (4)

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (4)

In 1995 I produced a small booklet on biblical separation. This is the third extract from that booklet:

Matthew 7:15 -23

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons vin your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Jesus here warns of false prophets, whose teaching and conduct will evidence their falsehood.  They are a danger to the flock.  They do not belong to his kingdom, despite their pretentious claims. Is it conceivable that Christ wishes the Church today to recognise and embrace the present descendants of these false prophets? Is it possible that he wishes the Church to tolerate them in her midst? Is not the warning given in order that the Church might recognise, discipline and remove these dangerous men?

Matthew 13:24 -30, 36 – 42

24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This passage is invariably appealed to by those who embrace a broad church or mixed church philosophy.  It is claimed that the parable shows that it is both impossible and undesirable to seek to remove the tares, (the sons of the evil one); we must leave that to the final judgement.

However, as Jesus himself makes clear, the field in question is not the church but the world. The parable does not teach that discipline cannot or should not be exercised by the church, but that evil cannot be eradicated from the world until the day of judgement. Those who interpret it of the Church, in clear and direct opposition to Christ’s statement, would logically have to accept that “no separation” must mean no discipline ever leading to the removal of individuals from the Church.  However, the New Testament clearly evidences instructions from both Christ and his apostles concerning the exclusion of unrepentant sinners from the fellowship of the visible Church.

Are we to accept Christ’s interpretation of his own parable, or are we to impose an interpretation that contradicts what Christ himself says and cannot be reconciled with clear New Testament evidence of the removal of the grossly immoral or doctrinally unsound who refuse to repent?

Matthew 16:6, 12

6 Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”… 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus warns his people against false teaching, which like yeast will spread and corrupt his Church.  There is a two-fold duty enjoined – “watch”, which implies diligent awareness of a possible danger, and “beware”, which shows that such teaching is recognised to be harmful and destructive. By implication Jesus does not mean recognise false teaching and accommodate it; he means recognise it and deal with it.

Matthew 24:4, 5, 23 – 25

4 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray… 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

Again, a warning is given to test the assertions of those who claim to speak in Christ’s name or exercise his authority.  Does Christ merely intend the Church to note these individuals, or does he intend that she refuses to give formal recognition to them and withholds fellowship from them?  It is not an adequate response to say that progressive liberal false teachers do not claim to be christs – they do claim to speak for Christ and have pretentions to a higher insight than Christ who, they say, was restricted by a primitive worldview and outmoded morality. Such teachers “lead astray” the visible Church, and Christ forewarns against them.  The general principle is that teachers of falsehood are to be recognised and rejected.

Note 2015: It is interesting that some evangelicals will make a false appeal to Matthew 16, but will not interact with the other passages in Mathew on false teachers.  Remember that by remaining in denominational fellowship with those who teach false doctrine and embrace sexual immorality, they are recognising the legitimacy of their status and authority within the denomination.  All of Christ’s warnings are either ignored, or reduced to the sphere of the local fellowship where, one would hope, evangelicals might exercise some biblical discipline.  However, experience has shown that even within the local sphere some professed evangelicals exercise no biblical discipline.

(To be continued)

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (3)

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (3)

In 1995 I produced a small booklet on biblical separation. This is the second extract from that booklet:

Martin Luther had a saying that he used on a number of occasions, “God led me on.” By this he meant that through particular circumstances in the course of his ministry and work as a Reformer he was forced to reconsider certain issues, go back to Scripture, look at it in a new light and prayerfully seek to follow the leading of the Spirit. It was because God led him on that his thinking developed and deepened and we had the great spiritual movement that we know as the Reformation.

There should be no embarrassment on the part of any Christian in saying “God led me on.” If that development is towards a more balanced and thoughtful understanding of Scripture, it is part of the process of spiritual growth and sanctification. If a man’s opinions shift so radically that he must reassess his place in the church, it is necessary to face that openly and honestly.

Although some may think that particular issues such as the law officially excluding from office those opposed to the ordination of women, or the acceptance of those who openly commend and approve of certain sexual practices are behind my current unease, that is not strictly true. These issues, although important, merely reflect an underlying and more fundamental change or development in my own position.

When as a young man of 22 I was licensed into the ministry of the Church of Scotland I came with all the zeal and much of the ignorance that youth possesses. I entered what I knew to be a broad church.  That is, I entered a denomination where I knew that other views beside evangelical Reformed orthodoxy held a place. I believed these other views to be wrong; I believed that the church’s confessional standards were faithful to evangelical truth; I believed it was possible to reform the church.

Working with non-evangelicals was not a problem. I choose not to identify with them.  I did not participate in their ordinations. I did not (privately) recognise their status. However, at the level of the wider church I was involved in a measure of evangelical two mindedness. I had to work with non-evangelicals at Presbytery level and accept the decisions they made at presbytery and General Assembly. I made financial contributions which would in part finance their teaching and further their ministry.

However, I was content in this situation.  I could get on undisturbed with my ministry in the local church.  The decisions of Presbytery or the General Assembly that were unbiblical, I simply ignored. I even worked within the structures, serving on both Presbytery and Assembly committees doing what I could to facilitate biblical change – but to little effect.

The one thing I never did was to study what the Word of God had to say on the doctrine of the Church. In essence I had no doctrine of the Church. I was a pietist who believed that individuals needed to be saved, that they could be nourished through fellowship, prayer and bible study within the local church and by biblical preaching on the Lord’s Day.

I never really interacted with the separatist position. When I studied the writings of the great men of the past it was with an eye to personal salvation and spiritual nurture, not to their struggle for a biblical church. I felt uneasy when I read Owen or Spurgeon on anything to do with the Church; I read Lloyd Jones for personal nurture not guidance on ecclesiology.  After all, I belonged to a body of men within my denomination who all claimed to be evangelical and even Reformed and whose leaders spoke of the infiltration and transformation of the broad church.

Whenever issues regarding doctrinal discipline and relationships with apostates arose in reading or preaching through Scripture I nimbly skated over them as divisive and unedifying. Besides, what separatist voices I did hear were harsh and aggressive, not conducive to Christ-like holiness and love. Sadly, those apostles of separation merely confirmed me in my own thinking.

I was not sure what changed my mind. In part it was a reaction to circumstances  - seeing the impotence of evangelicalism to prevent the denomination drifting further from Scripture into more false ecumenism, more liberalism, more toleration of that which was fundamentally unbiblical. Also, seeing in evangelicalism itself a drift away from a firm commitment to Scripture and a clear commitment to confessionalism, together with a drift towards a naïve pragmatism disillusioned me.  Seeing that men, even the best of men, had feet of clay and that their teaching had to be weighed by Scripture, not merely adopted as gospel on their personal authority, also distressed me. Continued reading of the Puritans, Spurgeon, Lloyd Jones and especially Machen raised questions for me.

Yet supremely it has been a renewed study of Scripture itself that has brought about my change of mind. As I have studied the Word afresh, coming to it without preconceptions or prejudice I have seen that to which I had formerly been blind. Does the New Testament teach that we are to fellowship with those who oppose sound doctrine? Does it envisage a situation in which doctrinal and moral error is tolerated? Does it present a picture of biblical churches being tied to other so-called churches which reject the Gospel? Does it tell us that biblical churches are to be under the authority of denominations that are in the majority non-Christian?

I have certainly changed my mind. I now believe that biblical churches must denounce and reject error in all its forms, discipline those who teach falsehood, and separate from those who reject God’s Word and refuse to be corrected. Where biblical discipline is no longer possible and falsehood is supported and promoted, I believe the local church must separate from an institution that is no longer under the authority of Christ and no longer subject to his Word.

What I have done in this document is not argue the case with regard to any particular error, for example the legal exclusion from the Church of Scotland ministry of men opposed to women’s ordination or the toleration of those who openly and actively defend and support homosexual activities. Rather, I have simply gone through the New Testament and recorded those passages that seem to speak on the issue of fellowship with error, the discipline of falsehood, and separation from false teachers. I have given some comments on certain passages to clarify what they are saying.  I am sure there are omissions in the discussion and it is by no means complete.

(To be continued)

Note 2015:  I see those today who argue as I did prior to 1995.  Meanwhile the denomination has moved further into moral and doctrinal apostasy, a significant number of ministers have left and the largest evangelical churches in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have left the denomination.  “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  (George Santayana)