Questions About Withdrawing

1)	Aren't the only subjects of church discipline the immoral?

If this does not describe the theory, it seems to describe the practice of churches. Churches are known to withdraw for fornication and adultery, but for other sins…?

a)	What was necessarily immoral in the case of Mt. 18:15-18? Would that have to be something immoral?

b)	Is not working "immoral"? 2 Th. 3:6-15

c)	Is covetous "immoral"? 1 Co. 5:11

d)	Is false teaching necessarily "immoral"? Rom. 16:17

e)	Can a man be "factious" without being "immoral"? Tit. 3:10,11

f)	"Immorality" is just one of the things that a man may persist in that would make him a subject of church discipline.

2)	Doesn't the sin a person is guilty of have to be of such that it is bringing open reproach upon the church both from within and without?

An unstated philosophy…? "As long as it is not bringing reproach on the church, ignoring it is the best way to deal with it"…?

a)	What about Mt. 18? Why would there be a need for witnesses to confirm it and to "tell it to the church" if it was open and evident?

b)	Could a man be "covetous" (1 Co. 5:11) without bringing public reproach upon the church? The same is true with several of these sins if the person kept it secret. He might be a fornicator and only a few know it. Would he be a subject of discipline if he refused to repent?

c)	Paul reproved the church at Corinth because they had let this conduct go on without doing anything about it, 1 Co. 5:1,2. It was not that it was now "commonly reported" (KJV) that was the reason they should now act. The fornicator should have already been "removed from their midst."

d)	One purpose of discipline is to save the soul of the sinner, 1 Co. 5:5, Mt. 18:11,15. The soul may be in jeopardy before the sin reaches the magnitude of public reproach.

3)	Doesn't 2 Th. 3 mention that these people were "busybodies," and therefore we only withdraw from those who are "causing trouble" in the church?

E.g., "It's between 'them,' or between him and the Lord; we ought not get involved unless it involves us" (i.e. unless we are forced to be involved).

a)	What is meant by "causing trouble"?

i)	Actively stirring unrest? Actively inciting division? If a man decides to worship idols in his home, by himself, and agrees not to teach his views or even speak of them to others, would he be a subject for punitive discipline? 1 Co. 5:11. Apply the same to drunkenness, sexual immorality, etc.

ii)	If a brother lies against another brother, who should we discipline —the liar, or the brother who "caused trouble" by bringing it to the church (Mt. 18:15-18)?

b)	Being a "busybody" may certainly "cause trouble in the church." However, any sin persisted in and ignored "causes trouble":

i)	A soul will be lost eternally.

ii)	Others may be influenced to follow the bad example.

iii)	Faithful people may become discouraged by the sin of the unrepentant.

iv)	The church becomes guilty for not doing its duty, 1 Co. 5; Rev. 2:14-16,20.

Thus the need to define "causing trouble." In one sense it is not the criterion for punitive discipline. In another sense, it is true of all sin to be punished by the church.

c)	Was the fact that the non-workers in Thessalonica were "busybodies" material to the command to withdraw from them? Consider:

i)	If they refused to work, but minded their own business, would they have been "leading an unruly life ('walking disorderly' KJV) and not according to the tradition" which they received from the apostles (v. 6)?

ii)	If they quit being busybodies, but yet refused to work, would they be "obeying our instruction in this letter" (v. 14)? If your answer is "no," were they to be " "withdrawn from," "noted," and "admonished"? (vv. 6,14,15)

iii)	Note: Becoming a busybody was evidently not unnatural behavior for someone not working and idle (remember they had no computers or TV's!). Compare 1 Tim. 5:13.

d)	When people in the church are allowed to sin willfully without censure, it can cause more trouble than we first realize.

4)	How can you withdraw from someone who has already withdrawn himself from you?

a)	First let us realize that we may refuse fellowship with a person in one area, while continuing to associate with them in another. For example, you might have no spiritual fellowship with a man in the world, yet associate with him in social activities. Compare 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 1 Cor. 5:11. Likewise with the impenitent brother . . .

b)	Certainly, if a man has withdrawn himself completely (spiritually and socially), there remains no relationship to sever. However, what sometimes happens is that the sinner withdraws himself spiritually (not attend assemblies, etc.), but continues to have social association with the members of the church (eating together, bowling together, etc.). This latter association can and should be severed for the "withdrawal" to be complete.

c)	Even when total severance of relationship has taken place, admonishing is still in order, 2 Th. 3:15.

5)	WHEN do you withdraw from a man?

a)	First, guilt must be established.

i)	In Mt. 18:16, the Lord directed that two or three witnesses be secured in order that "every fact may be confirmed." Compare Dt. 17:2-7 (Note that thorough inquiry may be necessary.); 19:15-21; Jn. 8:17.

ii)	In some cases, the guilt is obvious to all, or to a number of people. 1 Co. 5:1. Compare Lev. 24:10-16; Num. 15:32-36; 25:1-9.

iii)	One is not to be disciplined on the basis of "gossip" or assumption. Note 1 Tim. 5:19-20.

b)	Second, impenitence should be evident.

i)	In Mt. 18, the man to be disciplined had "refused to listen" to his brother, the witnesses, and finally, the church. In Thessalonica, the non-workers to be withdrawn from were those who would "not obey our instruction in this letter," 2 Th. 3:14. The factious man Titus was to "reject" refused two "warnings" and "is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned, 3:11. Punitive discipline is not for the weak, but for the impenitent.

ii)	Note the present tense verbs:

(1)	"has his father's wife" 1 Co. 5:1

(2)	"be an immoral person" 1 Co. 5:11

(3)	"leads an unruly life" 2 Th 3:6 ("walketh disorderly" KJV)

(4)	"leading an undisciplined life" ("walk…disorderly" KJV) 2 Th. 3:11

(5)	"is sinning, being self-condemned" Tit. 3:11

(6)	"Continued action, or a state of incompletion, is denoted by the present tense,—this kind of action is called durative or linear. The action of the verb is shown in progress, as going on." William Hersey Davis, Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Harper & Brothers Pub., New York, 1923), p. 25.

(7)	Compare Heb. 10:26, "For if we go on sinning willfully . . . " "The use of the present participle . . . shows that the sin is not one of error or inadvertence; not a sin of momentary excitement . . . ; but rather that it is a sin of habit; a sin that is willingly and deliberately persisted in; a sin that is committed with a high hand and in open violation and contempt of God's law . . . " R. Milligan, Epistle to the Hebrews (Gospel Light Pub. Co., Delight, AR)

iii)	"is perverted" – Tit 3:11 = perfect tense

"The tense in Greek called perfect is really a present perfect. The perfect presents the action of the verb in a completed state or condition. When the action was completed the perfect tense does not tell. It is still complete at the time of the use of the tense by the speaker or writer. The perfect expresses the continuance of completed action. It is then a combination of punctiliar action and durative action." Davis, op. cit., p. 152. [bold mine, srf]

iv)	"holding (present participle) to a form of godliness, although they have denied (middle perfect participle) its power"

c)	Note that the man subject to discipline in Mt. 18 was to be admonished three times, the people in Thessalonica were admonished twice (1 Th. 4:1-12; 5:14 . . . 2 Th. 3:14), and the factious man in Crete was to be warned twice (Tit. 3:10-11). "Time to repent" is proper (Rev. 2:21), but failure to do so will be evident by continuance in evil deeds. Rev. 9:20,21; 16:9; Mt. 3:8-10. Even the Lord's "time" had an end, Rev. 2:21-23. If too much time elapses,

i)	The soul may grow so cold nothing will touch them (Heb. 6:4-6).

ii)	The impenitent may have lost all desire for association with Christians, and the withdrawing be ineffective (2 Th. 3:14).

iii)	Irreparable damage may have occurred to other souls (1 Co. 5:6).

d)	Each case will have to be considered individually, all the facts weighed, and reasonable judgment made by spiritual men (1 Co. 5:12; 6:5).

6)	Isn't this "judging," which is condemned, Mt. 7?

a)	Mt. 7 is not condemning "judging" altogether, but rather hypercritical ("the speck in your brother's eye") and hypocritical ("You hypocrite, first…") judging. Interesting that those who say we should not judge others judge you for judging!

b)	We must and do render judgment, e.g. v. 15. Paul, in fact, calls what we must do relative to the impenitent, "judging," 1 Co. 5:12.

c)	Our judgment must be impartial and fair. Ex. 23:1-3; Lev. 19:35-37; Dt. 1:16,17; 16:18-20; Jn. 7:24; 1 Tim. 5:21; Jam. 2:1.

7)	What about someone who "quit coming to church" — is he to be withdrawn from?

a)	One might "quit coming to church" because he is unable to come (bedfast). Obviously, this is not what is under consideration, but it does point to the fact that WHY one quits assembling must be considered.

b)	The Hebrews quit assembling because of UNBELIEF, Heb. 10:23-25. See context of entire letter, e.g., 3:12-13; 6:4-12; 10:35-39. "Forsaking the assembling" was the symptom, UNBELIEF the disease. When on "quits going to church" because he no longer BELIEVES that Jesus is the risen Savior and he needs Him, no longer LOVES the Lord so as to keep His commandments, no longer FEARS Him and the consequences of disobeying Him, nor wishes to HONOR Him in the memorial of his death, no longer RESPECTS THE COVENANT He shed His blood to ratify, does not CARE about the Lord's people, nor wish to SUPPORT HIS CAUSE — is THAT person a subject of punitive discipline?? THAT'S the issue!

c)	"Forsaking the assemblies" is not specified in the lists in the passages o punitive discipline, but neither is murder. Either:

i)	Punitive discipline is NOT to be exercised against murderers and unbelievers because these are not specifically mentioned, or,

ii)	Punitive discipline IS to be exercised against both murderers and unbelievers because

(1)	They are included in the specifics mentioned, e.g., "lovers of self," "lovers of money, "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God," or,

(2)	These passages were not intended to form a comprehensive list of the specific grounds of punitive discipline, but are illustrative of a general class, any act of which, though not specifically mentioned, is grounds for discipline.

d)	Note that if the Hebrews persisted in forsaking the assemblies through unbelief they were said to be "sinning willfully" (Heb. 10:26). Note also the description of them in v. 29. Remember that these people were not turning to atheism, idolatry, rampant immorality, or to hostile aggression against the church. They were abandoning Christ in faith and practice.

e)	Heb. 12:15,16 warns about an "immoral or GODLESS ("profane' KJV, NKJV) person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal." Esau was "a man's man." He was "a skillful hunter, a man of the field" and "had a taste for game" (Gen. 25:27,28). But he had terribly poor values—was willing to sacrifice the promises of God associated with his "birthright" for a "single meal." After all, he said, "Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?" (Gen. 25:32). He thus "showed himself to be bebhlov (Hebrews 12:16), a profane man, who cared for nothing but the momentary gratification of sensual desires" (Keil and Delitzch O.T. commentary). THIS is the reason some "quit going to church" today!

8)	Aren't the sins listed in Mt. 18, 1 Cor. 5, and 2 Th. 3 the only scriptural reasons for punitive discipline?

a)	What about Rom. 16:17, 2 Tim. 3:2-5, and Tit. 3:10-11?

b)	Murder is not specified in these lists. Either:

i)	Punitive discipline is NOT to be exercised against murderers because these it is not specifically mentioned, or,

ii)	Punitive discipline IS to be exercised against murderers (and other sins though not specifically mentioned) because

(1)	They are included in the specifics mentioned, e.g., "lovers of self," "lovers of money, "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God," or,

(2)	These passages were not intended to form a comprehensive list of the specific grounds of punitive discipline, but are illustrative of a general class, any act of which, though not specifically mentioned, is grounds for discipline if not repented of.

9)	Does withdrawing include severance of social relations from one who is a relative? (brother, sister, son, daughter, husband, wife, etc.)

a)	Duties are based on relationships. The duty to "love" grows out of the relationship one sustains to another as a "neighbor," Lk. 10:27ff. (Note: not based on spiritual relationship—"Christian"; not on political relationship—"citizen"; nor on cultural relationship—race; but on human relationship—"who is my neighbor…proved to be neighbor" vv. 29,36.) So with duties of husband-wife relationship ("Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife.." 1 Co. 7:3; "Husbands, love your wives" Eph. 5:25 – does anyone have trouble understanding which "wife" a "husband" is to love?…the one he sustains a relationship to as "husband"; "wives, be subject to your own husbands" Eph. 5:22). Compare also: parent-child, Eph. 6:1-4, 1 Tim. 5:8; citizen-government, Rom. 13:1-7; etc. No relationship—no duty.

b)	Christians are commanded to sever all association with an impenitent brother (Mt. 18:17; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Th. 3:6; 2 Tim. 3:5; Tit. 3:10). If relatives are an exception, how do we know that? The only way to know the will of God is through the scriptures. The appeal for an authoritative solution by those who respect the Bible as the complete and infallible revelation of God cannot be to subjectivism ("I think…") or emotionalism, but to a "thus saith the Lord"— book, chapter, and verse.

c)	Illustration of a suggested approach

1 Cor. 15:33, Pro. 24:1 versus Mt. 19:5. Godly men, based on their relationship to God, have the duty to beware of being companions with wicked people. However, a godly man married to a wicked woman sustains a relationship to that woman other godly men do not sustain—that of being a "husband." Based on this relationship he has the duty to "cleave" to her and be her "companion." (Likewise of a godly woman married to a wicked man, 1 Cor. 7:12-14.) This does not authorize any other godly person to form companionship with this woman (e.g. a godly sister, brother, etc.—they do not sustain the relationship to her out of which this duty grows.). Now, if this conclusion be correct, not that is based on an appeal to book, chapter, and verse, not subjectivism or emotionalism.

d)	Apply to "withdrawing" in cases of husband-wife (Eph. 5:25; 1 Cor. 7:1-5, 12-14), parent-child (Eph. 6:1-4; 1 Tim. 5:8), brother-sister, etc.

e)	What about parent-child when child is gone from home? The parent and child still sustain the relationship, but where is the book, chapter, and verse that describes the duties of that relationship? For example, where is the scripture that describes social interaction (getting together for enjoyment, meals, birthdays, etc.) as the duty (not, "privilege") of the relationship once the child is gone from home?

f)	Practical observations

i)	If family ties exempt punitive discipline, this nullifies it as a practical procedure in many congregations for often the majority of a congregation is related.

ii)	Severing association with relatives may have the most powerful effect on the sinner.

g)	Difficult? See Dt. 13:6-11! Mt. 10:34ff.

h)	If there is a social gathering of the family and the apostate is there, can I go?

i)	Intent ? (See Mt. 5:27-28 – intent is a valid consideration in what we do.) Is the intent to company with apostate or lawful associates? (Maybe – to be with parents?) Presence ? "association." For example, because you sit at a table near someone else in a restaurant does not mean you are "associating with" them.

ii)	"Associate with," "keep aloof from," "withdraw," "avoid" = continual action (present tense).

a)	No one has all the answers. However, that does not mean we have none. And it does not excuse us from out responsibility to abide by what we have learned from God's Word.

b)	What would I (or you) do? Whatever we would or would not do is not the standard. God's Word is the standard.

c)	Teachers and preachers of God's Word must teach what God has said "with all authority," Titus 2:15. This must not be confused with a lack of compassion. Those faithful to their charge cannot allow their feelings, or the feelings of others, to cause them to "shrink from declaring the whole purpose of God," Acts 20:27.

11)	Other objections and obstacles to punitive discipline (for discussion)

a)	"It will run people off."

b)	"It will tear up the church."

c)	A misunderstanding of Mt. 13:36-43

d)	Unqualified and incompetent leadership

e)	"We will never be able to teach them."