When Church Courts Err. . .

Most of us have seen a true-crime documentary or televised court case in which a victim’s family members say something like this: “We don’t believe that she got the justice she deserved.” “We were disappointed with the outcome,” says a close family friend. “Nothing can bring him back. There should have been greater consequences for what he did.” Men and women regularly raise objections to and express dissatisfaction over decisions rendered in civil courts. So, too, many object to the outcome of cases of discipline in the courts of the church. To navigate some of the more common objections or questions about church discipline, it will help us to reflect on the nature of discipline according to Scripture and what principles Scripture gives to assist us in discerning the right way to respond to the outcomes of the process of church discipline.

God has established only two courts in which cases of injustice are to be adjudicated in this life: the civil court and the ecclesiastical court. These two courts represent distinct spheres of delegated authority from God. The Lord has established civil courts to deliberate over matters related to the civil sphere. He has ordered ecclesiastical courts to consider matters directly related to the spiritual nature of the church. The extent of the authority of these two courts is determined by God, since He is the only Lawgiver and the One who instituted them (Mark 10:42; Rom. 13:1; Heb. 13:7, 17).

A “church court” consists of a group of elders who provide spiritual oversight to the people of God in their respective churches (Acts 15:1–35). The authority that Christ has invested in the church is ministerial and declarative rather than legislative. Therefore, the courts of the church exist to declare and act only in accord with what God has revealed in His Word. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the ultimate rule by which the church court may act in the process of carrying out discipline among its members. This is essential to a right understanding of the power of church courts.

Both civil and church courts can and will err in this life. The fact that these courts can and will err does not negate their legitimacy or the authority that God has invested in them. The fact that church courts can and will err in matters of church discipline has led some to reject the authority of the church courts and the practice of discipline altogether. So how can we navigate objections and questions related to the practice of church discipline?

The Basis for Discipline

According to Matthew 18:16–18 and 1 Corinthians 5, church discipline is the Christ-appointed process by which believers are to deal with sin in the church. From private confrontation to ecclesiastical excommunication, this process is broad in its purpose and scope. Christ governs His church and enables His people to live together in holiness and harmony, in part, by means of biblical church discipline.

Church discipline was instituted by Christ for several ends. First, the exercise of discipline is a means to restore a believer who has fallen into a particular sin. Second, discipline should help restrain evil in the church. Finally, the exercise of discipline should serve to preserve the honor of Christ’s holy name in the church and the world. If someone cannot be reclaimed in the process of discipline, then he or she is to be put out of the fellowship (i.e., excommunicated) according to Christ’s command. When the process of discipline ends in excommunication, the church has protected its members from the leavening influences of evil. It has also defended the holiness and honor of Christ’s name.

The Apostle Paul explained that the church is to put the evil one away from its fellowship when that person refuses to repent (1 Cor. 5:13). Jesus likened the excommunicated person to a “Gentile and tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). Interestingly, “tax collectors and sinners” are the objects of Christ’s evangelistic mission in the gospel records (Matt. 11:19; 21:31; Luke 5:29–30; 7:29, 34; 15:1). Therefore, when the church has excommunicated someone, he or she becomes an object of evangelism. Even when the church has excommunicated the unrepentant person, there is a hope of redemption and reclamation (1 Cor. 5:5).

The Rules of Discipline

The faithful exercise of church discipline must be in accord with God’s revealed will in Scripture. When churches faithfully carry out discipline among their members in accord with Christ’s kingship in Scripture, the act of discipline becomes a mark of the church’s legitimacy. Where this mark is missing in a so-called church, there is cause to question whether it is a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was a vital principle of the Reformation. The three marks of a true church were the right ministry of God’s Word, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the faithful exercise of church discipline.

Accordingly, pastors and elders are not free to carry out church discipline in any other way than that expressly declared by God in Scripture. The church court may not impose on the members of the church requirements that God has not imposed on them. A church does not have a right to discipline members for something that is not revealed to be sinful in the Bible. Additionally, church courts are not free to impose excessive censures on members of the church.

Errors in Discipline

Sadly, there are ample instances of errors in church discipline. Churches sometimes neglect or misuse the practice of church discipline. These two equal but opposite errors tend to further the distrust of men and women in the church. Why do these errors occur? And what can we learn from them?

Desiring to be gracious, the elders of a local church may neglect to censure someone in the congregation who has had recurrent extramarital affairs. When this occurs, often the infidelity continues and exponential harm is done to the spouse and children.

Great harm is done when a church and its leaders fail to faithfully carry out discipline or report matters of civil consequence. When the elders of a church do not report alleged criminal abuse to the civil authorities, they fail to protect those who have been abused and give the perpetrator free rein to continue victimizing others. Refusing to report to the civil authorities a criminal act of abuse may seem like an expedient way to protect the church’s reputation; when elders fail to report criminal actions, however, they de facto protect the offender.

In churches that do not neglect the practice of discipline, the opposite error can occur––it may suffer misuse. There have been cases in which the pastors/elders of a church have weaponized discipline to silence opposition or assert their authority over against a congregant or church officer. In fact, church history is replete with examples of the weaponization of church courts. At other times, a church may misuse the exercise of discipline by censuring someone who has not done anything deserving of discipline. For instance, a church may wrongly discipline a woman who has separated from her husband on account of his violence. The courts of the church may act with more severity toward her than they do toward the offending spouse.

What, then, should be our response when we hear of the neglect of discipline or the misuse of it? When we believe that a church court has erred in its discipline of a loved one or friend, we must guard against allowing bitterness to fester and intemperate spirits to prevail. Too often, we can rationalize our unrighteous anger over a case of perceived injustice.

Believers should keep in mind that there are almost always private details to every case of discipline. Many church courts operate in private meetings to deliberate on discipline cases. These closed sessions are not intended for clandestine operations. Rather, they are to protect those involved and to handle delicate pastoral matters with discretion and care. There will always be those who complain about the elders’ deliberating on a discipline matter in confidential meetings. They often publicly excoriate the church courts for dealing with matters privately. Yet we should remember that there are almost certainly details that the congregation or the public is not required—or even entitled—to know. The names and actions discussed are often sensitive and require a measure of confidentiality.

Guardrails for Discipline

In the denomination in which I serve––the Presbyterian Church in America––pastors and elders vow to follow the process of discipline as outlined in our denominational Book of Church Order. Other denominations have similar constitutional documents to help them carry out the process of discipline. Though the process will always be subject to error, having guidelines for dealing with church discipline is exceedingly helpful to church officers and congregants alike.

Denominational checks and balances can serve as helpful guardrails in the process of church discipline. In connectional denominations such as the PCA, officers and members of a local church may appeal a case to the wider courts of the church. In Presbyterianism, the courts of the church are the elders of a local church (the session), the elders of a regional body of local churches (the presbytery), and the assembly of the elders of all the churches in the denomination (the general assembly). If a congregant believes that the elders of a local church have erred in neglecting or misusing discipline, they have a right to appeal to the wider courts through a process outlined in the Book of Church Order.

Having denominational guardrails for the process of discipline is exceedingly helpful in navigating some of the other questions about church discipline. For instance, should a local church receive a man who was excommunicated by his former church? This is a situation that occurs frequently in our individualistic age. Sometimes churches receive excommunicated people into membership simply to assert dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case reached by the former church. This practice should be avoided. The PCA Book of Church Order provides guidance on this aspect of discipline. If a man or woman was excommunicated by his or her former church and its leaders, the censure of excommunication can be lifted only by the court that made that ecclesiastical pronouncement. This is one very clear way that a denomination’s constitutional policies can give clarity on the challenging circumstances related to interchurch relations.

In a congregationalist church, the court of the church begins and ends with the local church. This limitation fails to provide additional oversight to pastors and elders who are overseeing the congregation. In most congregationalist churches, the collective group of elders, together with the congregation, is the final court in which all cases may be adjudicated. There are no wider courts to which a congregant or pastor may appeal if he or she believes that the court of the local church has failed to act faithfully in the exercise of discipline. In Presbyterianism and other Reformed denominations, the wider courts serve as checks and balances to the possible errors that may occur in the lower courts.

Although there may be a litany of objections and questions about the process of discipline, a consideration of these factors should provide guidance for navigating some of the more challenging dynamics of church discipline. In all our deliberations, we must remember that church courts can and will err in this fallen world. There is no perfect justice in this life. Ultimately, there is only one Lawgiver and Judge (James 4:12), who will perfectly execute justice in the divine tribunal on the last day (Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:17–19). At present, however, the ecclesiastical court is the only court that God has established to render judgments on spiritual matters for the spiritual advantage of the church.

*This article was first published in the August 2024 edition of Tabletalk Magazine as “Objections and Questions concerning Church Discipline.”