Your ShelfYour Projects

Important Question

7%

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 27, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 33.

Read the full edition

Important Question.

By Editor

"I HAVE been reading with much interest your recent articles on 'The Church,' and would like to ask your advice as to the proper course to be pursued in some difficulties in our own church.
"About a year ago the church expelled a member for what they and I thought good and sufficient reasons. This member has since given up the Sabbath and other points of present truth. There are three members of the same family as the one expelled, whose names are still in the church book, and who were all dissatisfied with the action taken. Two of them have refused to attend church since that time, and one has repeatedly made request to have her name taken from the church book, but all three are still keeping the Sabbath. What is the proper course to be pursued if they persist in their present course?"
Such cases as this are very difficult to manage, and they strongly illustrate the truthfulness of our remarks on the prevalent error of setting light by church relations. In answering such questions we have to presume that the action of the church was right; that its expulsion of a member was for sufficient cause. But in all cases of complaint this point should be well established. If dissatisfaction is expressed in the church with the administration of discipline, the case should be referred to the Conference Committee or laid before some discreet minister who is in the employ of the Conference. Thus a decision will be obtained outside of the church, from those not interested personally in the case, as to the charges and the evidence of guilt.
In this case, without any knowledge of the circumstances, the presumption is strongly in favor of the church, and against the party thus disciplined. First, we may presume in all cases that the church has acted justly, even as we would presume that a man was guilty when he was so declared by a jury of intelligent and conscientious men. Yet this presumption has its limitations, for churches do err, and therefore it is within the province of the Conference or its ministers to examine carefully all questions of discipline when requested to do so. But, secondly, the presumption in this case, in favor of the action of the church, is greatly strengthened by the fact that the one disciplined has turned away from God and from the truth. If an individual is true-hearted and conscientious in the service of God, he will not leave that service because his fellow-men do not please him in all things. This person's religion must have been superficial; he evidently lacked "depth of earth."
We now come to the real point of the question. It does not relate to the case of the one disciplined, but to the action of his friends who are dissatisfied with the discipline of the church. We have considered, and proved from the Scriptures, the fact that it is the duty of the church to discipline offending members; it has no option in the case; it must administer discipline, or deny its Lord. And the Saviour says that he who will not hear the church shall be considered as a heathen man and a publican; not only by the church itself, but its action shall be bound or ratified in Heaven. It is a very serious matter to reject the counsel of the church. And he who sets himself up against the church, and against its administration of discipline, makes himself an offender, and becomes thereby a proper subject of discipline.
Then the query will arise: What shall be done if the church errs in discipline? Must we submit to wrong because the wrong is done by the church? There is abundant provision for this in our organization. Every church is a member of the Conference. By the constitution the Conference, and between its annual sessions, the Conference Committee, has charge of the work within its bounds. Of course it is the duty of the Conference to see that discipline is properly administered in all the churches.
If any person or persons think that injustice has been done in the action of the church, it is their duty to appeal to the Conference for a re-hearing of the case. If they neglect to do this, but take steps to bring the action of the church into contempt, and utterly disregard its authority, then they become proper subjects of discipline, and it becomes the duty of the church to cite them to appear and answer for their action. This duty is often a painful one, but should not be neglected. The disaffected ones may do much injury if the disaffection be not promptly checked. False sympathy may be aroused, and the whole church may be tainted with the leaven of murmuring. If the church considers that it cannot successfully deal with the case, then its resort is to the Conference for assistance. In the case mentioned by our questioner, the church has doubtless been negligent of duty; and doubtless the difficulty is now greater than it would have been if it had been promptly and judiciously attended to.
A similar case was presented to us some time since. Fellowship was withdrawn from a member because he habitually broke the Sabbath; whereupon his kindred denounced the action of the church, and threatened to leave it. Their plea was that he was working for the State; it was work which somebody must do; and therefore came under the head of works allowable upon the Sabbath. But this plea was not good. It was not of the nature of a work of necessity or of mercy, allowable to be done upon the Sabbath, for he was working for wages, and would not have done the work if wages had not been paid for it. The same plea might be made for almost any occupation, and Sabbath observance would fall into disuse. It is necessary that grain be ground, but a Sabbath-keeper may not therefore run his mill upon the Sabbath. It may be considered highly necessary to run a railroad locomotive every day of the week; but it is neither necessary nor proper for members of our churches to so run them. It is necessary for the farmer to harvest his grain; but the Lord says it shall not be done upon the Sabbath. Ex. 34:21. The plea that it is necessary that the work shall be done, is never good where wages is paid for the work, as there are plenty who are ready to do it for hire who have no scruples about the Sabbath.
As for those who threatened to leave the church because one was properly disciplined for Sabbath-breaking, they proved that they were not true and valuable members. And any church can better afford to lose a few members than to bear the influence and the reproach of fellowshiping a persistent Sabbath-breaker.
Another case. A member of a certain church became disaffected toward the elder, and his feelings became so strong that he reported that the elder had lied. What is the duty of the church in such a case? The duty of the church is clear. The member should be required to confess his wrong, and if he refused, he should receive a censure. And this should be done without any regard to the action or position of the elder. For, if the elder were guilty, there are proper steps to be taken, as already noticed. If the member has not taken these steps; if he has not brought his complaint before the church, and yet has raised such a report, he is, without any question, worthy of censure. He has offended, first, against his brother, in not taking the proper steps to reclaim him if he has gone astray. Secondly, against the church which elected the elder to his position. Thirdly, against the Conference which had the elder ordained to his office. And, fourthly, he has rejected the counsel of God, who has given express directions to treat with respect those in authority. Officers may be impeached for wrong-doing; but they are to be treated with due respect until they are impeached, or until they are heard in their own defense.
Once more. Several members of a church were so far at variance with the elder that they decided that they could not enjoy meetings led by him, and therefore made arrangements to separate themselves and hold separate meetings. Suppose the majority of the church had united in this action, would their separation from the regular meetings have been allowable? No; it would have been disorderly, and must have brought them under censure. If they had cause of complaint, they could appeal to the Conference to hear their complaint. But if they separate themselves from the church in a disorderly manner, they could not justly ask a hearing until they returned and confessed their error.
We have brought these cases together because they are all related to the question proposed in the letter herein given. In each case there was an attempt to subvert discipline by taking the case into their own hands, and both passing judgment and acting thereon without asking that their complaint be heard. This shows, what we have again and again asserted, that the duties of church-members, and the responsibilities of church membership, are not properly appreciated. The authority of the church is despised; and the administration of discipline is denounced as an injustice. The same false ideas are prevailing almost everywhere—in civil as well as in ecclesiastical matters. Criminals are turned into heroes, and the rights of society are overlooked in working up sympathy for evil-doers.
There is no point of doctrine upon which our churches more greatly need instruction than upon this: the responsibilities of church membership, and the duty and importance of church discipline.