How should sin in the church be handled?

As to this case, our Lord's instructions are clear and simple: "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican."

We would repeat, and emphasise the statement, that the putting away of a person from the Lord's table, as well as the reception, must be the act of the whole assembly. No one has any right to tell another to remain away from the table. If I know of any brother who is living in sin, I should seek to exercise his conscience in a pastoral way. I should warn him, and seek to lead him to self-judgement. If he persists, I should bring his case before those who really care for the honour of Christ and the purity of His assembly. Then, if there be no hope, and no possible ground for demur, the assembly should be called together to act, and the occasion might be used for setting before the consciences of all the solemnity of the ground occupied by the assembly, and the holiness that becomes the house of the Lord forever.

How then should the discipline be carried out? Just as 1 Corinthians 5 directs. When the case is so patent, so clear, that all discussion and deliberation is at an end, the whole assembly should be solemnly convened for the special purpose — for, most assuredly it is of sufficient gravity and importance to command a special meeting. All should, if possible, attend, and seek grace to make the sin their own, to go down before God in true self-judgement, and eat the sin offering. The assembly is not called to deliberate or discuss. If there is any demand for discussion, the assembly is not called to act. The case should be thoroughly investigated, and all the facts collected by those who care for the interests of Christ and His Church; and when it is thoroughly settled, and the evidence perfectly conclusive, then the whole assembly is called to perform, in deep sorrow and humiliation, the sad act of putting away from among themselves the evil-doer. It is an act of holy obedience to the Lord's command.

Also, in Matthew 18, you have an interesting passage where the Lord himself says, if a brother has sinned against you, first of all you take the matter to him and see if you can put it right with him, and if he refuses - he doesn't repent, you ask two or three others to come and hear the cause of it. And if he won't hear them, then you tell it to the assembly. It doesn't say that this is a serious moral evil. It is some sin which has been done against me. If I did this course of things, and if the person refuses to hear the assembly, then, he is to be unto me a heathen and a publican. Well, you can't break bread with heathens and publicans, can you? That's quite obvious. People say, Oh yes, but this is in the singular. He must be unto thee as a heathen and a publican, not unto the assembly; but that's nonsense, absolute nonsense! If I cannot break bread with somebody, then surely if the assembly is still allowing him to break bread, I put myself out, don't I? I can't break bread with anybody in the assembly. That's nonsense; the one that is innocent would be the one that suffered. No, it implies most distinctly, that the assembly has pronounced, and the assembly has judged that that person is as a heathen and a publican. He is not in fellowship. Though it may be a minor sin as it were, yet obstinate refusal to repent ultimately will cause exclusion from fellowship. An obstinate refusal to repent also therefore can be a cause for exclusion from reception. I think that is clear. That's MORAL evil.

But progress in the path of departure is not easily checked. It is possible that the individual personal dealing of the one who alone knew of the sin may be disregarded. If so, it becomes necessary to take "one or two more with thee, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." With the failure of these, if they fail, the privacy of the matter ends. Sin cannot be ignored. The holiness of God's house demands that it should be dealt with. "If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church." Here the importance of the witnesses come in. They are able to give a faithful report of every word, said both to him, and by him, and by their testimony every word is established. If he neglect to hear the Church, the Church, as the custodian of the rights of God on earth, will have to deal in righteous discipline with the unrepentant one, and no longer accord him the place his sin has unfitted him to fill. "Let him be unto them as an heathen man and a publican." And this action of the assembly will be ratified in Heaven, either in "binding" the sin upon the guilty one, or in "loosing" him from it, when there is evidence of true repentance and restoration of soul to God.

Thus godly discipline is necessary to arrest the defiling effect of sin in the Assembly, thereby keeping it clean and unleavened. If one in whose heart the leaven of sin is working does not yield to instruction, pleading, warning, reproof, and godly care and judge himself, but persists in his course, the Assembly must, after due time and effort to deliver him, purge out that leavened person by putting him or her away as an evil person so that the gathering will not become leavened by this defiled one.

Now there are different ways of dealing with offending Christians. Under certain circumstances their brethren are to withdraw from them. Or the assembly may have to take the matter up and rebuke them. Or it may be called upon to resort to the severest measure, and put out the wicked person. Hence at the outset we can see, that excommunication is not the only means of discipline sanctioned by the Word. In truth, it is the last step that can be resorted to, and indicates that nothing else can be done with the offender.

But more severe measures still are set before us; for sin must not be trifled with, and the assembly has not only to deal with offenders, but to clear itself. Hence, if the offence calls for it, excommunication must take place; not simply because a brother has sinned — for who would then be at the table at all? — but because the person has sinned in such a way, that nothing short of it will meet the gravity of the case. What holy ground we are on! We are in the house of God; so we can make no compromise with evil, nor treat it with indifference.

On the other hand it is unbelief to abandon unity because of the simple entrance of evil, however heinous. 1 Corinthians is the standing witness against such unwarrantable haste. Yet what more flagrant than the evil denounced in 1 Cor. 5? Even the heathen would not tolerate it. Notwithstanding the apostle neither severs himself nor disowns them. He censures their state and demands the putting out of the leaven, so as to vindicate the Lord and clear themselves. What disqualifies is the refusal to hear His voice, the rejection of adequate testimony in His name. So the assembly if faithful ceases to say "brother," and designates the evildoer as "wicked." When repentant, the apostle charges them to confirm love to him.

"This does not destroy christian responsibility towards those who surround the Lord's table. You will find instructions as to all this in what is written about the church. 'The field is the world,' the church only embraces those believed to be members of Christ's body. Take 1 Corinthians, where we have the Holy Ghost showing the true nature of ecclesiastical discipline. Supposing there are professing Christians, guilty of any sin you please; such persons are not to be owned, while they are going on in that sin, as members of Christ's body. A real saint may fall into open sin, but the church, knowing it, is bound to intervene for the purpose of expressing God's judgment about the sin. Were they deliberately to allow such a one to come to the Lord's table, they would in effect make the Lord a party to that sin. The question is not whether the person be converted or not. If unconverted, men have no business in the church, if converted, sin is not to be winked at. The guilty are not to be put out of the kingdom of heaven, they are to be put out of the church. So that the teaching of the word of God is most plain as to both these truths. It is wrong to use worldly punishments to deal with a hypocrite, even when he is detected. I may seek. the good of his soul, but this is no reason for punishing him thus. But if a Christian is guilty of sin, the church, though called to be patient in judgment, is never to suffer it; but we are to leave guilty people, who are unconverted, to be judged by the Lord at His appearing.