Recently,
a family left the congregation of which they had been members, under
less than favorable circumstances. When their loving congregation,
believing they should "have the same concern one for the other"
(1 Cor. 12:25),
sought to take steps to correct the matter, the family simply fled to
another congregation where they were accepted. When their new
congregation was contacted about the matter, and asked if someone from
each congregation could sit down with this family to try to bring about
repentance, the response was, "It's none of your business; they are not
your members anymore." It was further stated that if the offended church
were to discipline this family, they would be guilty of "practicing the
sponsoring church concept in the area of discipline" since they were now
members elsewhere. The sponsoring church is an unauthorized centralizing
of funds under one eldership which oversees the work of many churches
for them. However, God did authorize the local church to perform the
works of evangelism, benevolence and edification
(Eph. 4:11-13)
of the which discipline is an essential part! Since the family was being
disciplined for sins committed while yet members of the previous
congregation, there is no parallel that can be drawn to the sponsoring
church.
This
real life scenario reflects some common problems and misunderstandings
of church membership and discipline, both on the part of the individuals
being disciplined, and of the congregations to which they may flee,
asking that "asylum" be granted to them.
1.
Errors on the part of the individuals. Those who would flee discipline
have the old misunderstanding of "you can't withdraw from me if I
withdraw from you first." Certainly, one may attend any faithful
congregation he feels best meets his family's needs, but if there are
discipline problems left unresolved, these must first be corrected
before moving on to another congregation. To fail to do so shows little
concern for one's own soul since sin remains unrepented and therefore
unforgiven (Matt.
5:23-24). It shows little concern for the congregation from which
one might flee as well. Correction needs to be made where the sin
occurred, where it is known, and where its evil influence has been felt
(Matt. 18:15-18).
One should be thankful if he is part of a congregation that loves
him enough to discipline
(Heb. 12:5-11).
Instead, the attitude is all too often, "Then I'll just go somewhere
else." And, if they look far enough, they will find some congregation
that does not love their souls as much, and will accept them as they
are, still in their sin, thus perpetuating the problem. Can you imagine
an IRS agent notifying a person that because he had not paid his taxes,
he was going to jail, only to be told by the tax evader,
"You
can't touch me, I now denounce my citizenship." Such would lead to
anarchy in the world, and in the church as well. It would virtually
eliminate discipline all together. Now, one may be a citizen wherever he
wishes, but if there are obligations left unresolved, they must first be
settled before moving, or be sent back to correct it as in the case of
Manuel Noreiga! This shows little concern for the congregation to which
one might go. They are immediately brought into fellowship with an
impenitent sinner, his thus becoming a "spot in their love feast"
(Jude 12),
thereby endangering the souls of the new members as well.
2.
Errors on the part of the congregation which would accept those into
fellowship who are being disciplined elsewhere. This can be a problem in
areas where there are numerous faithful congregations. When problems
arise, it is all too tempting for one to just move to another
congregation and leave matters unresolved. And, congregations that do
not encourage them to first "go and be reconciled"
(Matt. 5:24)
contribute to the problem. A local congregation is not a city of refuge
(Num. 35). At
least with the cities of refuge, one had to truly be innocent, or be
delivered back for proper discipline. The second congregation in our
illustration seems very much like the Corinthian church, being puffed-up
over having gained a family in sin, rather than mourning over being put
in fellowship with an impenitent sinner
(1 Cor. 5:2, 6-8).
If the erring brother of
1 Corinthians 5
had asked to be a member of Athens or Philippi, the two churches
could have communicated about the man's status without any violation of
autonomy, regardless of which church initiated the communication. There
is Bible precedent for communication between congregations without
practicing the "sponsoring church"
(cf. Rom. 16; Col.
4:13-17). Paul even instructed Onesimus to return to Philemon!
And, there is even authority for asking of letters of recommendation
from those seeking to place membership
(2 Cor. 3:1).
And, when one does ask to be identified with a group, must they
immediately be accepted, even before the brethren can have a chance to
talk with (Acts
9:26-27)?
May I
suggest, that it does not suffice for the sin to be confessed only at
the new congregation, but to the ones which were initially offended as
well (Matt. 18:5).
Otherwise, when we have fights with our spouse, all we have to do
is to tell some stranger we are sorry and that should settle it! Often,
we are too excited about the possibility of gaining new members to want
to probe their reason for coming to us, or for leaving their previous
group, which we have already established Bible authority for so doing.
Conclusion
Really,
was the first congregation really guilty of the sponsoring church? Or,
when members flee to another congregation to escape discipline and are
accepted, is this closer to the Catholic doctrine of granting sanctuary?
Other Articles
Attitudes Towards the Weak
Changing the Mission of the Church
The Consequence of Confusion
Tthe Right to Grow in the Faith