It
is well to note that this short paper, printed from notes of a discourse at a
meeting 1841), refers to the spirit animating the individual in dealing with
evil. The putting evil out is assumed; as the word of God expressly commands
it. We are bound to keep God's house clean, to look diligently lest any man
fail of the grace of God, lest there be amongst us such or such, to judge them
that are within, and put out the wicked. But this is a proving of ourselves to
be clean. God will have the place of His dwelling clean. The question of
withdrawing from evildoers, a positive commandment of the word, is not touched.
The object of the tract is the spirit in which discipline is to be exercised.]
We
ought to remember what we are in ourselves, when we talk about exercising
discipline - it is an amazingly solemn thing. When I reflect, that I am a poor
sinner, saved by mere mercy, standing only in Jesus Christ for acceptance, in
myself vile, it is, evidently, an awful thing to take discipline into my own
hands. Who can judge save God? This is my first thought.
Here
I stand, as nothing, in the midst of persons dear to the Lord, whom I must look
upon and esteem better than myself, in the consciousness of my own sinfulness
and nothingness before the Lord; and to talk of exercising discipline! - it is
a very solemn thought indeed to my own mind; it presses on me peculiarly. Only
one thing gets me out of that feeling, and that is the prerogative of love.
When love is really in exercise, it cares for nothing but the accomplishment
of its object. Look at it in the Lord Jesus, no matter what stood in the way,
on He went. This is the only thing that can rightly relieve the spirit from the
sense of an altogether false position in the exercise of discipline. The moment
I get out of that, it is a monstrous thing. Though the subject-matter of
conduct be righteousness, that which sets it going is love - love in exercise,
to secure, at all cost of pain to itself, the blessing of holiness in the
church. It is not a position of superiority in the flesh. (See Matt. 23: 8-11.)
The character of discipline as "master" we have not at all. Though
influenced by love to maintain righteousness, and stimulated to a jealous
watchful care one over another, we must ever remember that, after all, "to
his own master" our brother "standeth or falleth," Rom. 14: 4.
Love alone guides it, and the service of love displays it. We do see that
character of discipline in the Lord Jesus, when He took a scourge of small
cords to drive out the desecrators of the temple (Matt. 21; John 2); but it was
anticipative of another character of Christ, when He will execute judgment.
There are
two or three kinds of discipline, full of comfort as shewing the association of
the individual with the whole body, and with God, which have been ordinarily
confounded amongst Christians.
There is,
in this country, a great deal more difficulty connected with the question of
discipline, than elsewhere, because of certain habits of action, whereby
discipline has come to be looked at merely as a deliberative and judicial act.
Persons have been voluntarily associated, and there has been a habit of
legislating for the credit of the voluntarily associated body. Because people
must secure themselves, each society makes its own rules. Now that principle is
as far from the truth as the world from the church, or light from darkness. One
cannot admit of any principle of voluntary association at all, or of
preservative rules of one's own. Man's will is that which brings in
everlasting destruction. It may be modified, but the principle is
altogether false. There is no such thing as voluntary action on man's part, in
the things of God; it is acting under Christ, by the Spirit. The moment I get
man's will, I get the devil's service and not Christ's. This has occasioned a
mass of practical difficulty, that those abroad do not feel. When I get the
notion of a judicial process going on, for the trial of crime, by certain laws,
I find myself altogether off the ground of grace; I have confounded all sorts
of things.
The
developed statement of Matthew 18: 15-17, though often cited, does not seem to
touch the matter. It is a question of wrong done to a brother; and it is never
said, concerning the one who has done the wrong, that the church is to put him
out; but, "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
This may have to be the case, as to the church subsequently, but it is not its
character here; it is simply, "Let him be unto thee," etc. -
have nothing more to do with him. It supposes a case of wrong done to an
individual, as in the trespass-offering, where it is said, "If a soul sin,
and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour," etc.*
There is the sovereignty of grace to forgive, even to the "seventy times
seven"; but "thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbour, and not
suffer sin upon him." An individual has wronged me: how am I to act? I go
not to the Father's discipline, nor to the Son's discipline over His own house;
but, acting towards him in the love of the brotherhood, I go and say,
"Brother, thou hast done me wrong,"
etc. There is, first of all, this remonstrance in righteousness; yet the
path is such that it may not get out of the scope of grace. Having done this,
if he will not hear me, I take with me one or two more, "that in the mouth
of two or three witnesses," etc. If that fails, I then tell it to the
whole assembly. If he refuse to hear the church, "Let him be unto
thee," etc. The thing prescribed is a course of individual conduct, and
the result, individual position towards another. It may come to a case of
church discipline, but not necessarily. I go hoping to gain my brother to
repentance, to replace him in his right relation in fellowship with myself and
God (where there is failure in brotherly love, it necessarily affects communion
with the Father): if my brother is gained, it goes no farther; it ought never
to pass my lips; the church knows nothing of it, or any other creature, but we
two. If there is failure, I act to restore him in fellowship to all.
{*All
acting against God's commandments and doing that which was not to be done, was
sin, and called for the sin-offering; but there were trespasses against the individual,
wrongs done to the neighbour, by breaches of confidence and the like,
and for these there was a trespass-offering. See the first seven verses of
Leviticus 6.}
As to the
discipline of the Father, there is a great deal more of individual prerogative
of grace in this. I doubt whether it comes under the care of a body of Christians
at all; it is the exercise of individual care. I do not see that the church
stands in the place of the Father. The idea of superiority is true in a certain
sense; there is difference of grace as well as of gift. If I have more
holiness, I must go and restore my brother, Gal. 6: 1. But then this individual
action in grace is not church discipline. It is most important to keep these
things clear and distinct, so that, while one is quite ready to be subject to
the two or three, individual energy should not be at all restrained, but remain
clear and untouched. The Holy Ghost must have all His liberty. I could suppose
a case where an individual had to go and rebuke all round, as Timothy,
"Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering," etc., 2 Tim. 4: 2.
That is discipline; but the church has nothing to do with it, it is individual
action.
But again,
the church may be forced to exercise discipline, as in the case of the
Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5. The Corinthians were not the least prepared to exercise
discipline; but the apostle insists upon their doing so. There is that which is
the individual exercise of the energy of the Spirit in the ministry of grace
and truth, and the like, on the souls of others; and church action not at all
involved. It is a mischief to make church discipline the only discipline. It
would be a most awful thing if it were necessary to bring every evil before
all. It is not the tendency of charity to bring evil into public: "Charity
covereth a multitude of sins." If it sees a brother sin a sin which is not
unto death, it goes and prays for him; and the sin may never come out as a
question of church discipline at all. I believe there is never a case of church
discipline but to the shame of the whole body. In writing to the Corinthians,
Paul says, "Ye have not mourned," etc.: they all were identified with
it. Like some sore on a man's body, it tells of the disease of the body, of the
constitutional condition. The assembly is never prepared, or in the place to
exercise discipline, unless having first identified itself with the sin of the
individual. If it does not do it in that way, it takes a judicial form, which
will not be the ministration of the grace of Christ. Christ has not yet taken
His full judicial place. The moment it comes to that, the saying - "He
that is unjust, let him be unjust still," etc., the church has departed
from its place altogether. Its priestly character in the present dispensation
is one of grace.
What is the
character of fatherly care and discipline? How does the father exercise
it? Is it not because he is the father? He is not in the same place as the
child. This is the principle of it. There is one superior in grace and wisdom;
he sees another going wrong in judgment, and he goes and says to him, "I
was once there," etc. - "do not go and do so and so." It is
entreaty and exposing the circumstances in love; though, in case of hardness,
rebuke may come in. The father can make all allowance for weakness and
inexperience, as having passed through the same himself. Make yourself ever so
much the servant, the principle of the father must be maintained; and it is a
principle of individual superiority, however accompanied by grace. All the
world should not stop me. It is the prerogative of individual love, to say, "Though
the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." It flows from the
father's love, and leads me to the other, not to let him go on wrong, for
love's sake. It is not a case of trespass against me, but a case of walk or
conduct against his place as a child. We fail, because we do not like to go
through the pain and trouble of it. If a saint gets into trouble, he is
Christ's sheep; and I am bound, in whatsoever way I can, to seek to get him out
of it. He may say, "What business have you to come?" and the like;
but I ought to go and lay myself at his feet, in order to get him out of the
net which he has got into, even though he dislike me for it. This needs the
spirit of grace, and the seeking to bear the whole on one's own soul.
The other
kind of discipline is that of Christ, as Son "over his own house."
The case of Judas is of great value here. It will always be, that, if there is
spirituality in the body, evil cannot continue long; it is impossible that
hypocrisy, or anything else, should continue, where there is spirituality. In
the case of Judas, the Lord's personal grace overcame everything; and it will
always be so, proportionably, and practically. The highest manifestation of
evil was against this grace - "he that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up
his heel against me . . . . He then, having received the sop" (grace
thoroughly came out, when the evil was shewn to be done against Himself),
"went immediately out," John 13.
This
discipline never acts beyond what is manifested; and, therefore, we see the
disciples questioning one another what these things meant, before the evil was
done; it did not touch the conscience of the assembly. The Father's discipline
comes in, where there is nothing manifest, for that which is secret, or which
may come out years after. If an elder brother, and seeing a younger one in
danger, I ought to deal in this fatherly care, and tell him of it; but this is
very distinct from church discipline. The moment I exercise fatherly
discipline, it assumes a communion, in myself, with God, about the thing - a
discernment of that working in another which may produce evil, that he has not
- a perception which I have by my spiritual experience, which authorises and
incites me to act in faithful love toward him, though without, perhaps, any
ability to explain what I am doing to a human being.
The mixing
up of these three things, individual remonstrance, the Father's discipline in
this fatherly care, and Christ's discipline "as Son over his own
house" - ecclesiastical discipline, has led to all manner of most dreadful
confusion.
The great
body of discipline ought to be altogether aimed at hindering excommunication,
the putting of a person out. Nine-tenths of the discipline which ought to go on
is individual. If it comes to the question of the exercise of the discipline of
"the Son over his own house," the church ought never to take it up,
but in selfidentification, in confession of common sin and shame, that it has
come over to this. So it would be no court of justice at all, but a disgrace to
the body. Spirituality in the church would purge out hypocrisy, defilement, and
everything unworthy, without assuming a judicial aspect. Nothing should be so
abhorrent, as that, in God's house, such a thing had happened. If it were in
one of our houses that something dishonourable and disgraceful had happened,
should we go and feel as though we were altogether unconcerned, that we had
nothing to do with it? It might be that some reprobate son must be put out, for
the sake of the others – he cannot be reclaimed, and he is corrupting the
family - what can be done? It is necessary to say, "I cannot keep you
here; I cannot corrupt the rest by your habits and manners." Would it not,
nevertheless, be for weeping and mourning, for sorrow of heart, and shame and
dishonour to the whole family? They would not like to talk on the subject; and
others would refrain from it to spare their feelings: his name would not be
mentioned. In the house of the Son, how abhorrent to be putting out! what
common shame! what anguish! what sorrow! There is nothing more abhorrent to God
than a judicial process.
The church
is indeed plunged in corruption and weakness; but this is the very thing that
would make one cling to the saints, and the more anxiously maintain the
individual responsibility of those who have any gift for pastoral care. There
is nothing I pray for more, than the dispensation of pastors. What I mean by a
pastor is a person who can bear the whole sorrow, care, misery, and sin of
another on his own soul, and go to God about it, and bring from God what will
meet it, before he goes to the other.
There is
another thing most clear. The result may be putting out; but if it ever comes
to a corporate act in judgment, discipline ends the moment he is put out, and
ends altogether - "Do not ye judge them that are within? But them
that are without God judgeth," 1 Cor. 5: 12.
The
question whether I can sit down with this or that person who is within never
arises. A person staying away from communion (because of another, of whom he
does not think well, being there) is a most extraordinary thing; he is
excommunicating himself for another's sake. "For we, being many, are one
bread [loaf], and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread," 1
Cor. 10: 17. If I stay away, I am saying, that I am not a Christian, because
another has gone wrong. That is not the way to act. There may be a step to
take, but it is not to commit the folly of excommunicating myself, lest a
sinner should intrude.
All
discipline until the last act is restorative. The act of putting outside, of
excommunication, is not (properly speaking) discipline, but the saying that
discipline is ineffective, and there is an end of it; the church says, "I
can do no more."
As to the
question of unanimity in cases of church discipline, we must remember, it is
the Son exercising His discipline over His own house. In the case in
Corinthians it was the direct action of Paul in apostolic power on the body,
and not of the church. The body claiming a right to exercise discipline!
one cannot conceive a more terrible thing; it is turning the family of God into
a court of justice. Suppose the case of a father going to turn out-of-doors a
wicked son, and the other children of the family saying, "We have a right
to help our father in turning our brother out of the house," what an
awful thing! We find the apostle forcing the Corinthians to exercise
discipline, when they were not a bit disposed to do so. "Here (he says)
there is sin among you, and ye are not mourning, that he that has
done this deed might be taken away from among you (he is forcing them to
the conviction that the sin is theirs, as well as that of the man); and
now put away from among yourselves that wicked person." The church
is never in the place of exercising discipline until the sin of the individual
becomes the sin of the church, recognised as such.
There is
all this, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may
fear" (1 Tim. 5: 20), "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye
which are spiritual restore such," etc., and the like; but, if evil has
arisen of such a character as to demand excommunication, instead of the church
having a right to put away, it is obliged to do it. The saints
must approve themselves clear. He forces these people into the recognition of
their own condition, gets them ashamed of themselves - they retire from the man
- and he is left alone to the shame of his sin. (See 2 Cor. 2 and 7) That is
the way the apostle forced them to exercise discipline. The conscience of the
whole church was forced into cleanness in a matter of which it was corporately
guilty. And what trouble he had to do it! That is, I think, the force of,
"To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything,
to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the Person of Christ; lest
Satan should get an advantage over us: for we are not ignorant of his
devices." What the devil was at was this - the apostle had insisted upon
the excommunication (1 Cor. 5: 3-5); and the church did not like it. He compelled
them to act; they did it in the judicial way, and did not want to restore him,
2 Cor. 2: 6, 7. Then he makes them go along with him in the act of restoration:
"to whom ye forgive," etc. The design of Satan was to introduce the
wickedness, and make them careless about it, and, afterwards, judicial; and
then to make it an occasion of separation of feeling between the apostle and
the body of saints at Corinth. Paul identifies himself with the whole body,
first forcing them to clear themselves, and then taking care that they should
all restore him, that there should be perfect unity between himself and them.
He goes with them, and associates them with himself, in it all; and so, in both
excommunication and restoration, he has them with him. If the conscience of the
body is not brought up to what it acts, to the point of purging itself by the
act of excommunication, I do not see what good is done: it is merely making
hypocrites of them.
The house
is to be kept clean. The Father's care over the family is one thing; the Son's
over "his own house," another. The Son commits the disciples to the
care of the Holy Father John 17), this is distinct from having the house in
order. In John 15 he says, "I am the true vine," "ye are the
branches," "my Father is the husbandman," etc., it is all the
Father's care. The Father purges the branches, to the end they may bear as much
fruit as possible. But in the case of the Son over His own house, it is not
individual, but the house kept clean. "If we would judge ourselves, we
should not be judged," etc.
There are
then these three kinds of discipline: -
(1) That of brotherly relationship. Here I go as a
person wronged, but it must be with grace.
(2) That of fatherly care - the Father exercising it
with loving-kindness and tenderness, as over an erring child.
(3) Where the Son is over His own house, and where we
have to act in the responsibility of keeping the house clean, that people
should have their consciences according to the house in which they are – not
only the individual, but the house, the body: the conscience of the body must
act. The effect may be, graciously, that the individual is restored, but that
is a collateral thing. When you come to that point, there is something besides
restoring; there is the responsibility of keeping the house clean - the
conscience of all there; and that may sometimes give a great deal of trouble.
As to the
nature of all this, the spirit in which it should be conducted, it is priestly;
and the priests ate the sinoffering
within the holy place, Lev. 10. I do not think any person or body of Christians
can exercise discipline, unless as having the conscience clear, as having felt
the power of the evil and sin before God, as if he had himself committed it.
Then he does it as needful to purge himself. It will all be for positive
mischief - the dealing with it, if not so. What character of position does
Jesus hold now? That of priestly service. And we are associated with Him. If
there were more of the priestly intercession implied by eating of the
sinoffering within the holy place, there would be no such abomination as that
of the church assuming a judicial character. Suppose the case of a family, in
which a brother had committed something disgraceful, would it not be for
bitterness and anguish of the whole family? What common anxiety and pain of
heart it would occasion! Does Christ not feed upon the sin-offering? does He
not feel the sorrow? does He not charge Himself with it? He is the Head of His
body, the church: is He not wounded and pained in a member? Yes, it is so. If
it be a case of individual remonstrance with a brother for a fault, I am not
fit to rebuke him, unless my soul has been in priestly exercise and service
about it, as though I had been in the sin myself How does Christ act? He bears
it on His heart and pleads about it to draw out the grace that will remedy it.
So with the child of God: he carries the sin upon his own heart into the
presence of God; he pleads with the Father, as a priest, that the dishonour
done to Christ's body, of which he is a member, may be remedied. This I believe
to be the spirit in which discipline should be exercised. But here we fail. We
have not grace to eat the sinoffering. I come to church action and there I find
yet more: it should go and humble itself until it has cleared itself. This is
the force to me of "ye have not mourned," etc.; there was not
sufficient spirituality at Corinth to take and bear the sin at all; "You
ought to have been bowed down there, broken-hearted, and broken in spirit at
such a thing not being put out - concerned as to the cleanness of Christ's
house."
It is
another part of priestly service to separate between clean and unclean. The
priests were not to drink wine nor strong drink, that they might keep
themselves in a spiritual state, by the habits of the sanctuary, being able to
discern between clean, etc. This is always true. We must take as our object, in
dealing with evil, God's object. God's house is the scene and place of God's
order. If it be said, that the woman must "have power [a covering] on her
head because of the angels" (1 Cor. 11: 10), it is as the exhibition of
God's order. Nothing should be permitted in the house that angels could not
come in and approve. All is in thorough ruin; the full glory of the house will
be manifested when Christ comes in glory, and not till then; but we should
desire that, as far as possible, by the energy of the Holy Ghost, there should
be correspondence in spirit and manner with what shall be hereafter. When
Israel returned from the captivity, after Lo-ammi had been written upon them,
and the glory had departed from the house, the public manifestation was gone,
but Nehemiah and Ezra could find that in which to act according to God's mind.
That is our present condition. But we have now what they had not: we were
always a remnant, we began at the end - "Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. 18: 20. If
the whole corporate system has come to nought, I get back to certain unchangeable
blessed principles from which all is derived. The very thing from which all
springs, to which Christ has attached, not only His name, but His discipline -
the power of binding and loosing - is the gathering together of the "two
or three." This is of the greatest possible comfort. The great principle
remains true amidst all the failure.
If we turn
to John 20 we find that when He sent forth His disciples, He breathed on them
and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
There is nothing like a corporate church system here; but the energy of the
Holy Ghost in spiritual discernment in the disciples, as sent from Christ, and
acting on behalf of Christ. Discipline is a question of the energy of the
Spirit. If that which is done is not done in the power of the Holy Ghost, it is
nothing.
In
principle, what was needed has been said. I do not see any difference, whether
it be in the hands of a remnant, or anything else; because then we get into the
structure of a judicial process at once – sinners judging sinners. It is, first
of all, a question what the energy of the Spirit is for ministry in God's
house. The unanimity is a unanimity of having consciences exercised and forced
into discipline. It is a terrible thing to hear sinners talking about judging
another sinner; but a blessed thing to see them exercised in conscience about
sin come in among themselves. It must be in grace. I no more dare act, save in
grace, than I could wish judgment to myself. "Judge not, that ye be not
judged; for with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,"
Matt. 7: 1, 2. If we go to exercise judgment, we shall get it.
As to the
difficulty of saints meeting together, where there is not pastorship, my prayer
is, that God would raise up pastors; but I believe where there were brethren
meeting together, and walking together on brotherly principles, provided they
kept to their real position, and did not set about making churches, they would
be just as happy as others in different circumstances. One thing I would pray
for, because I love the Lord's sheep, is that there might be shepherds. I know
nothing next to personal communion with the Lord, so blessed as the pastor
feeding the Lord's sheep, the Lord's flock; but it is the Lord's flock.
I see nothing about a pastor and his flock; that changes the whole aspect of
things. When it is felt to be the Lord's flock a man has to look over,
what thoughts of responsibility, what care, what zeal, what watchfulness! I do
not see anything so lovely. "Lovest thou me? . . Feed my sheep - feed my
lambs." I know nothing like it upon earth - the care of a true-hearted
pastor, one who can bear the whole burden of grief and care of any soul and
deal with God about it. I believe it is the happiest, most blessed relationship
that can subsist in this world. But we are not to suppose that the "great
Shepherd" cannot take care of His own sheep because there are no
under-shepherds. If there were those who met together and hung on the Lord, if
they did not pretend to be what they were not, though there were no pastors
among them, there would be no danger; they would infallibly have the care of that
Shepherd. We must not impute our failure to God, as though He could not
take care of us. The moment power in the Spirit is gone, power in the flesh
comes in.
J. N. Darby