Disciplining Church Leaders

A. The relation of James 2:13 and Matthew 7:1-5 to church discipline.

1. Both of these passages deal with judging with partiality, unfairly judging or condemning without the benefit of mercy. Compare them to the following passages:

a) Proverbs 21:13

b) Matthew 5:7

c) Matthew 6:14-15

d) Matthew 18:21-35

2. James himself showed judgment

a) James 1:7-8

b) James 1:26

c) James 2:14

d) James 3:1

3. Jesus Himself showed judgment

a) Matthew 23:13-36

b) Mark 12:38-40

4. Paul judged Peter – Galatians 2:11
5. We must not confuse mercy with the suspension of justice. The scriptures teach mercy through discipline, not mercy apart from discipline.

B. The relation of 1 Timothy 1:20 and 3 John 9-10 to church discipline.

1. Nowhere does it say explicitly that a leader must be dismissed for sin.

a. However, this is an argument from silence and invalid for nowhere does it say that a Christian should not partake of illegal drugs.

b. The argument could be reversed because nowhere does it say that the CANNOT be fired either.

c. It would be foolish to say that one must follow the tenets of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in order to QUALIFY a leader, but that they cannot be used as a means to DISQUALIFY a leader.

2. If these two passages apply to all Christians then all Christians are to be church elders, which is patently false.

a. All believers are priests (1 Pe. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10, 20:6)

b. We all have direct access to God (Heb. 4:16, 7:19; 13:6)

c. We all have the same responsibility to search the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-11)

d. There are not two classes of Christians but one.

e. However, not all are called or gifted to be teachers.

(1) Eph. 4:11

(2) 1 Timothy 3:2

f. However, there are higher standards for those who teach, those who would be leaders

(1) James 3:1

(2) Luke 20:47

(3) Luke 12:47-48

(4) Matt. 23:1-36

3. Though there are no explicit examples of church elders being retained after gross sin, there are examples of elders being released after sin.

a. 1 Timothy 1:20 Hymenaeus and Alexander were dismissed from their leadership and, in fact, kicked out of the church (“delivered to Satan”).

b. 3 John 9-10 Diotrephes was to be severely warned. The word used is as a last warning before punishment or discipline.

4. 1 Timothy 3:1ff and 5:17-22 Elders had taught false doctrines or abused the church financially. Paul had to return to Ephesus to dismiss these elders and left Timothy behind to appoint and instruct new elders. So the dismissal of elders is the background of 1 Timothy.
5. 1 Timothy 5:19-20 does not say he should be immediately dismissed, but the word “bring charge” (kathegoriva, kategoria) can mean:

a) bringing charge against someone in authority because of heresy or hypocrisy the intended result is to nullify the person’s credibility and following.

b) A charge of moral or ethical failure which has as its intention the punishment or discipline of the recipient. Such punishment is not merely a rebuke or public censure so as to cause embarrassment but involves concrete, severe action.

C. John 21 and the restoration of a church leader

1. What seems to be to the sinning leader’s advantage.

a) Peter was restored not merely to fellowship but to leadership.

b) Peter denied Christ three times so Christ had to reinstate him three times.

c) Peter denied Christ before His enemies so Christ restored him before his friends. The Lord initiated the restoration of Peter to fellowship and leadership – and he did so in the presence of the other disciples.

2. What is not in the sinners’ advantage.

a) Peter’s sin was only one night (Thursday, April 2, AD 33 by my reckoning), not longstanding or habitual. The date of the restoration was at least fourteen days later and probably no more than three weeks later. This is evident by a comparison of John 20:19 (the disciples probably met on the evening of Easter Sunday, April 5), John 20:26 (eight days later = Monday April 13), and John 21:1 (after the previous ones occurred in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that the disciples traveled the 40+ miles from Jerusalem to the Sea of Tiberius in less than 48 hours – and then fished all night. Thus, the morning of Thursday, April 16 is the earliest date possible for this encounter.) The restoration therefore did not need to be prolonged. Peter was restored both to fellowship and leadership in one morning. At the same time, Jesus did not immediately restore Peter – that is, he did not rush to restore him immediately after his resurrection. He let Peter mull over what he had done for at least two weeks. In fact, Jesus even met with him on two separate occasions before He restored him.

b) Peter was IMMEDIATELY contrite and repentant. Before we can be fully used by God, we must be broken. We must come to admit the depth of our own sin and inadequacy. Peter had thought of himself as nearly invincible in the service of his Lord. He would not be used until this attitude was destroyed. This is really the prerequisite of any leader. The church must not discard people in ministry simply because of sin in their lives. However, if a person does not repent of the sin, then they are disqualified from service.

c) Peter returned to fishing (John 21:3) which seems to imply that he no longer felt qualified for ministry. Peter’s attitude after he had sinned was one of contrition and unconditional surrender to his Lord. Peter was by trade a fisherman. People who fish for a living certainly don’t take it up for leisure. The fact that Peter returned to this role may well indicate his self-perception about his own unworthiness for the ministry. He made no assumptions and no pleas. Further, he knew of the cloud of suspicion that his fellow disciples now had of him. It would be the height of arrogance for him to assert his leadership role in the presence of the other disciples. In effect, he was willing to withdraw himself until Jesus basically ordered him to return. When a leader sins grievously, he loses his right to assert himself as leader. If he reasserts his position of authority, it reveals an unrepentant attitude.

d) Jesus did not immediately restore him, but waited at least two weeks and after He had seen Peter in the presence of his spiritual brothers twice before doing so. Although I am a “restorationist” in that I believe that a church should, as a principle, always strive to restore a sinning member to fellowship, the situation with leaders takes on a new twist. Restoration of leaders, as with any other Christians, must first be a restoration to fellowship. Restoration to leadership must always take second priority, never first. There are some sins that are so grievous that they betray a deep and profound trust, thereby removing the leader from any moral high ground that he might otherwise have had. If a leader, after his deep sin is clearly exposed, resists submitting to the moral authority of others (including waiting on their blessing and time-scale for his return to leadership), he is not ready to lead again. The very act of submission to others is in itself a test of the nature of an individual’s leadership style: if he won’t submit, the reason may well be that he is power-hungry rather than a true servant leader. Yet we all know of pastors (and other public figures) who hardly lose a stride after exposure of their sin, continuing on in their role of power as though nothing had happened. They should, instead, look at the example of Peter in John 21: he was ready to abandon all though of leading this little band of disciples until the one against whom he sinned, the Lord Jesus Himself, confronted him with the threefold question (corresponding to Peter’s threefold denial), “Peter, do you love me?” After each positive response to fellowship, Jesus then gives him the command to feed the flock, thus reinstating Peter to leadership.

e) If you compare this passage to 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Timothy 1:20, it would seem that the longer and more serious the sin, the longer and more difficult the restoration process must be. I am convinced that one of the devil’s chief objective today is to paralyze the church from acting when holiness is on the line. In Eph. 4:26-27 we read, “Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, nor give a place to the devil.” Although v. 26 is often misunderstood, the idea of this text is “I command you to be angry about the sin that is in your midst. Do not sit idly by, but act quickly – do not let the sun go down on the cause of your anger. For if you do not exercise discipline, you will give a toehold to the devil.” (cp. Pr. 24:12).