Every true Christian agrees with the goals of God’s plan for discipline. We believe in rescuing sinners, protecting the congregation, maintaining a holy communion, preserving the honor of Christ, and preventing the wrath of God. We believe in church discipline. God wants us to believe in it so fervently that we would insist on being members in churches where discipline is affirmed and practiced. My brothers and sisters need it. But so do I.

“For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant” (Heb. 12:11). We don’t like discipline—in our personal lives, in the family, or at church—because it hurts. No balanced person enjoys giving or receiving corrective instruction. Correction wounds our pride and threatens our imagined autonomy. It can occasion resentment against authorities. Our natural instinct is to resist discipline.
But to dodge discipline is unwise. The writer goes on. “But later [discipline] yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Like many good things discipline proves its value over time.  And only a fool trades away long-term benefits for short-term pleasure. Discipline is for our good. So it shouldn’t surprise us that a loving God requires church censures.
What is the Premise for Church Censures?
Every organization has procedures for keeping order. For a soccer match or an election to mean anything there must be standards of conduct and penalties for misbehavior. So rules are an essential part of government, business, centers of learning, social clubs, and even families. Those who fault the church for censuring sin show their bias against religion. There is a commonplace argument for church discipline.
But more importantly Jesus requires the church to discipline sin. Jesus is both the Lord of creation and the “King and Head of his church” (see Eph. 5:23). According to his sovereign power Jesus has “appointed a government, in the hand of church officers.” Christ first called the apostles to rule, though not as the power-hungry gentiles, but through humble service (Matt. 20:25–28). The original apostles “appointed elders … in every church” (Acts 14:23), who were to appoint other elders to enforce the “apostles’ teaching,” down through the ages (Titus 1:5; Acts 2:42).
Jesus’ overseers rule through what Scripture calls the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19). The image of the keys makes an important point: divinely appointed church leaders have no original or independent authority. They are simply stewards who execute Christ’s revealed will (Titus 1:7). Part of how church leaders watch over the souls of their members (Heb. 13:17) is by keeping discipline in the church. Through preaching and formal censures church leaders unlock the kingdom to the penitent and lock it against the impenitent. Here is one example. The apostles opened the kingdom to a man named Simon when he “believed.” But when it was clear that he was “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity” Peter rightly insisted that Simon had “neither part nor lot” in the church’s business (see Acts 8:9–25); he closed the kingdom to him (cf. 1 Cor. 5:2; 2 Thess. 3:6).
The church must have spiritual doors with divinely appointed custodians manning the locks. Discipline is a necessary part of every organization. It is also commanded by Jesus and modeled by the biblical church.
Read More
Related Posts:

Item 1 passes the presbyteries and the 51st General Assembly, the most radical changes in churches may just be more clear labels of who is a “Youth Pastor” (and is ordained) and who is a “Youth Director/Coordinator” (and is unordained staff); or, who is in the ordained diaconate as distinguished from those who should properly be called deacons’ assistants or other titles under BCO 9-7.[4] While such changes seem small and – perhaps to some – pedantic, they ought to be considered as helpfully didactic in that they teach something.[5]

While all of the proposed amendments to the Book of Church Order (BCO) received about three-fourths (or more) support at the 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCAGA50), Item 1 (i.e., Overture 26), is most likely to receive a measure of debate and discussion in the presbyteries. The context of the debate leading up to PCAGA50, in Overtures Committee and on the Assembly floor, however, can help us to understand the proposal and why it takes the current narrow form that it does.First, the language of the proposed amendment to BCO 7-3 regards titling of unordained people by the simple addition of a sentence (which is underlined):BCO 7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority therein, or receive official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scripture. Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles of, the ordained offices of pastor/elder, or deacon.
The Need for Item 1
The Reformed Tradition has long placed a high value on polity and ordination. Confessional Presbyterians also place a high value on words and what they convey about ordained officers in our churches. Those who support the proposed amendment share a duplex concern that the doctrine of ordination has been downplayed as of late, and that there is a consequent confusion and disorder around the offices of elder and deacon in the PCA. Some of this downplaying is evidently unintentional (e.g., in the use of the words “pastor” and “minister” to describe unordained ministry staff), but perhaps some is intentional (e.g., in the case of the diaconate).Members of our congregations visit or transfer to other PCA churches and find unordained people listed as “pastors” and “deacons.” Some of these well-meaning staffers and volunteers could not be properly ordained in our polity. In such cases, unordained persons are occasionally listed on church websites and weekly bulletins as “youth pastor” or “women’s pastor.” More frequently, we find egalitarian lists of “deacons” which include both men (either ordained or not) and women (not ordained) who function together as a board of deacons for their church. These confusing practices cause many onlookers and visitors to question the practical weight, then, of ordination when the difference between an “ordained deacon” and an “unordained deacon” may be reduced to a mere asterisk in the bulletin.
The Overtures Committee Debate
In Overtures Committee, the argument for the original overture 26 was presented as making explicit what was already implicit in our Standards, giving greater clarity to the proper titling of our ordained officers. Leading up to the 50th General Assembly, some leveled an objection to this overture that it is already implicit in our Standards that only those who are ordained should use these titles. They appropriately asked, “Wouldn’t this be mere redundancy in our BCO if we all already understand this principle?”During the debate in the Overtures Committee, however, one man spoke against the overture saying that churches should be able to use these titles how they wish, especially if an unordained woman was in charge of women’s ministry. In such a case, he argued, she should be able to be titled: “Women’s Pastor.” This argument against the overture seemed to have the opposite effect of that which the speaker intended, evidently convincing some commissioners that making that which is implicit in our Standards more explicit in order to counteract the apparent confusion over how some churches use ordained titles for unordained persons.
Read More
Related Posts:

What we should be looking for in correction of another believer is a pattern of sin, where the goal is one of restoration (Matt. 18:15; Gal. 6:1; Jd. 1:22-23). There are proper channels in which we are to do this in the life of the church (Matt. 18:15-20). We are likewise not to judge the unbeliever in the same manner as we would a brother, because God Himself will judge those outside of the church (1 Cor. 5:12-13). 

One of the most misused verses in the Bible is Matthew 7:1, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Professing Christians and non-Christians alike will quote this verse in a myriad of ways—mostly though as a tool for deflection. In other words, it’s used as a “gotcha.” Drop Matthew 7:1 in any particular debate over issues of sin and apparently the debate is over. However, much like any other misused verse in the Scriptures, the problem is resolved simply by examining the context of the passage.
“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:1-5).

Simply by reading this passage, one can see there is a bit more going on here than the fact that someone is judging another person. As we can see in v. 2, the conjunction “for” explains the reason behind the command not to judge. The way or manner in which we judge will be used against us. In other words, the same standard we apply for others will be the standard by which we are judged. There is an inherent warning here for people—that much is clear.

The implication is rather simple: judge and you will also be judged. How you judge someone is the same way you will be judged, hence why Christ explains we ought to first examine our own motives and actions first. If we are in sin, the primary focus should be upon “removing the log” from our own eye so that we can see clearly in removing the speck in another’s. It is then and only then that we can appropriately judge another—and the presumption of the passage is in fact that we will judge another. Notice, however, that the focus of Christ in Matt. 7:5 is that of the hypocritical person, who judges without respect to their own sins. In other words, there is still judgment that is deemed necessary to take place; the “speck” is not to be left in another’s eye, but rather, the one seeking to remove the speck from their brother’s eye ought to first inspect their own eye in order to rightly remove it.

This is the same thing in the mind of the apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-2:16. Here he deals with those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-20), reject God and the truth in favor of worshipping some element of Creation and indulging the lusts of their hearts (Rom 1:21-25), and are subsequently given over to degrading passions (Rom. 1:26-27), a debased mind (Rom. 1:28), and as a result are filled with a litany of evil practices and thoughts (Rom. 1:28-31). They know, in other words, that such things are worthy of death—yet they not only practice them but give hearty approval to others who do the same (Rom. 1:32). For this reason, these same types of people have no excuse, for in that which they judge another, they condemn themselves because they practice the same things (Rom. 2:1).

No matter how you stretch it, the demand placed on the one who passes unrighteous judgment is repentance, for we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things (Rom. 2:2). They should know they will experience the same fate as others who practice evil deeds (Rom. 2:3), for God’s patience is not a sanction of their sin, but a demonstration of His kindness, which is to lead to repentance (Rom. 2:4). Those of a stubborn, unrepentant heart will only store up further condemnation on the Day of Judgement, where God will reward each man their due (Rom. 2:5-16). Again, to put it as bluntly as one can, those who practice lawlessness will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10) and their hypocritical judgment will only build up more and more wrath.
Read More