Credo
20 February 2023

Why are modern churches so reticent when it comes to church discipline? The problem is across the board, affecting both Catholic and Protestant churches.

The dithering among the bishops of the Catholic Church in the USA on whether Joe Biden should be barred from receiving communion because of his stance on various moral issues which blatantly contradict Catholic teachings is a recent case in point.

In an earlier age, the church would have acted much more decisively. In 1077, King Henry IV had to seek forgiveness from Pope Gregory VII. In Geneva, 1553, some prominent but promiscuous citizens came forward to receive communion. John Calvin stretched his hands over the sacrament and declared: “These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned, and dishonour the table of my God.” Calvin held his ground and the Libertines, as they were known, backed off.

The problem in modern churches is both theological and pastoral. The reluctance to exercise church discipline reflects failure to take seriously what the church is theologically. Take, for instance, the Nicene affirmation concerning the church: “We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church….” It sets the parameters for church life and practice. Any action by any member that undermines any one of these four “marks” compromises the integrity of the Church.

The Protestant Reformers saw church discipline as a theological issue. For them, church discipline must be understood in relation to the nature of the church, even though they differed on how that relationship is to be conceived. They differed over whether church discipline belonged to the being (esse) or “well-being” (bene esse) of the church.

In other words, is church discipline so essential to the church that without it the church ceases to be the church? Or, is church discipline to make the church more holy, so that a less-than-holy church does not make it any less the church of Christ?

But all the major Reformers agreed on two things. First, discipline was necessary for the well-being of the church. For example, Luther believed that church authority was a “holy thing” or a “sacrament” given by the Holy Spirit to purify the church and reform the offender (1 Cor. 5:5, 7; 11:32).

Second, Christ gave authority to the church to exercise discipline. This was how “the keys of the kingdom” (Matt 16:19) was understood, as seen, for instance, in the Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 83).

There was also broad consensus on how discipline should be carried out. Let me cite just two underlying concerns. One is the concern for justice. The nature of the discipline should be proportional to the offence (cf. Luke 12:47, 48). Another is its end. It has in view the reformation of the offender.

Nowadays, however, church leaders are increasingly dealing with spiritual problems based on best management practice. Any action that is deemed to create a negative image of the church or result in loss of revenue is summarily ruled out. It is hardly surprising, then, that they have more reason to maintain the status quo than to act decisively.

Most churches have disciplinary guidelines; what is lacking is the will and courage to implement them when needed. Pastors are reluctant to discipline for fear of possible fallouts. We want to be perceived as “good guys” and ministers are no exception. There is a general loss of nerve when one is faced with making unpopular decisions.

A frequently heard rationale for indecisiveness is that modern people, especially the younger generation, are more open to persuasion than direct correction. Just as corporeal punishment is no longer acceptable for “enlightened” people, traditional discipline which may include temporary suspension, barring the person from Holy Communion, or, in a worst-case scenario, excommunication, is considered too harsh.

This argument, however, is flawed. It implies that the church should get its cues from the world on how it should govern itself. It is an implicit capitulation to the spirit of the age.

The result of capitulation is that church discipline is no longer thought of as a theological but a management issue. The basis for exercising discipline has shifted. Pragmatic considerations have come to dominate our decision-making instead of biblical and theological ones.

It is no longer the question, what is the scriptural basis for dealing with the offender? Rather, the foremost question is, how do we manage this problem without offending people and causing an exodus? How do we control the damage without affecting the church’s public image?

Has the modern church not understood that on the theology of church discipline, there is perhaps greater consensus than disagreement among the churches? I think it understands all too well. The problem is not lack of knowledge but lack of will and loss of nerve.

Rev Dr Simon Chan had taught theology and other related subjects such as liturgical, spiritual, and contextual theologies at Trinity Theological College for more than 30 years.