In Matthew chapter 18 we are taught how trespasses between Church members is to be handled by the church and the members involved. While the teachings on trespasses and other lesser sins are important, this article is intended to consider only the more serious offenses a Church must address to maintain order according to scripture.

Being fully aware of my fallibility in understanding all Scripture, this article is not presented as a standard but it expresses the light and understanding I have concerning this important subject. I do not claim to represent anyone but myself in my comments and interpretations of the referenced scriptures presented in this article. I desire to give liberty to other interpretations where the scriptures do not clearly speak but where they speak clearly I believe we should strongly support their teachings. We pray that the reader will consider our thoughts with a mantle of charity.

Church discipline is clearly taught in the scriptures and the Baptist family at one time more closely followed its teachings. Today most Baptists societies have abandon the scriptural teachings governing church discipline of its members. This result is inevitable due to the fact that most of the Baptist family has long since departed from sound biblical principles in doctrine and practice. It is more alarming however when Primitive Baptist exhibit lack of concern for wayward members and other practical Godliness issues the world's influence generate. The preaching of practical godliness, to a great degree, has been neglected among our churches. At least in the churches I have been blessed from my youth to attend. I'm not saying there hasn't been any but more often than not a well intentioned sermon, or segment of a sermon, is presented in such a manner as to not apply the needed subject matter to those in attendance. This usually is done to preserve the popularity/reputation of the preacher.

Not only were the Baptists in the past more zealous concerning Church Discipline but all the protestant denominations were too. I have a book on Church Discipline, published by the Methodist in 1906, which demonstrates that fact. It would be healthy for our nation if all churches were to again follow the teachings of the scriptures in regard to discipline. An exhaustive study of church records and historical writings will reveal the fact that scriptural church discipline among those Baptists who sided with the modern missionary movement eventually weakened due to accepting false practices which led to false doctrine. On the other hand the Baptists who opposed the modern missionary movement by in large retained scriptural church discipline. This group became known as Primitive Baptists. However, since the 1830 Baptist split, the Primitive Baptists have contended with several liberal/progressive movements that by their nature practices weaker church discipline. Due to the degradation caused by these movements and their disrespectful use of the name "Primitive Baptist" today one must examine those using the name to verify that indeed their doctrine, church discipline and practices identify them as the true original (Primitive) Baptist. Sad to say but there are a growing number of churches claiming to be Old Line Primitive Baptist but their hybrid mix of old line and progressive practices reveals that they are not true Old Line Primitive Baptist and should not use the name.

In 1937 a peace meeting was held in Nashville Tennessee to address the problems causing disturbances among the Primitive Baptists at that time. The recommendations set forth in that peace meeting provides a good overview of church discipline practiced by Primitive Baptists down through the years. In this article I refer to those recommendations believing them to be scripturally sound. To read the complete committee report, connect to link A at the close of this article. Item 12 in the recommendations states: "When a person is excluded by an orderly Old Baptist Church, he is thereby excluded from every orderly Old Baptist Church on earth." I would also say that if any of our churches have declared non-fellowship with a minister or a church we can not lightly resume fellowship with that minister or church without laboring with the offended sister church. The present Liberal/Progressive movement which began to manifest itself in the early 1990's has on more than one occasion resumed fellowship with Ministers and/or Churches who, for many years, were deemed disorderly. Their doing so without the involved churches resolving the matter shows their contempt for the Church of Christ (true Primitive Baptist).

Regarding Church members that are guilty of gross sins the Nashville peace meeting recommendations stated: Item 5-- In cases of gross infractions of immorality, the person should be withdrawn from and let him reform on the outside of the church. The church is not a reformatory. Such things as drunkenness, fornication, adultery, false swearing, perjury, and such like gross sin should not be tolerated by the church in any of her members, whether the member be a private one, or a deacon, or a preacher. Really the church can better afford to retain a private member who is guilty of gross wrong, if any difference, because the minister is in public life as a representative of the church before the world. This statement was not intended to address every conceivable case that could occur but in general it is a good statement supported by I Corinthians 5:9-11 "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." The part of the statement dealing with private members or public members (ministers) needs a little clarifying but in general I accept the statement. We are clearly taught that if there is a brother (or sister) who is guilty of one of the sins listed we are not to retain them as a member of the church. To differing degrees, I believe that all the sins listed in I Corinthians 5:9-11 as well as in I Corinthians 6:9-10 require us to take ample time to insure reformation is possible and has taken place before a new member can be accepted or an excluded member can be restored. Sins, such as public drunkenness appear more than once in old church minutes and our churches most of the time forgave a repentant member for that charge and restored them. But if a person is a habitual offender in that area it would be orderly to not accept one back into the church but leave them outside as a "drunkard".

Let me digress to emphasize that if a person commits any of the sins discussed in this article it has nothing to do with whether that person will go to heaven or hell after his/her life is over. Some erroneously teach that I Corinthians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" will keep one from their heavenly inheritance. The Kingdom of God in this text refers to the Kingdom (Church) that Christ set up while He was here on earth and teaches us that those of God's children that practice any of these gross sins has no right to sit in communion with the saints of God in that church kingdom. It has no reference to eternal heaven. If any sin we commit could keep us out of heaven then our eternal salvation would depend on our works and not God's Grace. I'm glad to declare unto you that the church discipline taught in the scriptures has nothing to do with your eternal home but it does affect your church home here on earth.

Before discussing the sins of fornication and adultery in more detail, I believe it would be expedient for me to give my understanding as to the definition of the words fornication and adultery. In my opinion, Fornication is any scripturally illegal sex act between two or more persons. If between those of the same sex it is sodomy; to lie with a beast is bestiality. The word Adultery has and can be used in a general sense to cover all sexual sins as it appears to be used in the Ten Commandments. The Lord also used the word Adultery to describe the lustful desires of a man toward a woman: "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The Lord further defines adultery in the context of marriage: "And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9). Notice that He said except for fornication, which indicates that an unfaithful mate, who commits a sex act with someone else, has committed fornication, the Lord didn't call it adultery at this point. In the context of this scripture the Lord teaches that a married person commits adultery if they put away a faithful mate and then marries another person. It would also follow that if you marry someone that dissolved their marriage in which unfaithfulness was not involved would put you in a situation of marrying someone who has a living husband or wife, thus committing adultery. An exception to this would be if the mate you put away subsequently commits fornication and/or remarries which would free you assuming you have remained celibate and unmarried yourself. The scriptures also teach there is a spiritual Adultery and fornication. We are in a sense married to Christ when we join the Church; therefore being unfaithful to the doctrines of the church is committing spiritual adultery and or fornication. This article is not intended to cover that type of adultery and fornication.

Due to the fact that most civil court rulings in regard to divorce do not adequately give the details of the cause of a divorce, the Church is not under obligation to take the civil courts findings concerning a divorce but must judge according to biblical teachings on the subject. This is true of all judgments' rendered by the civil courts concerning a members moral standing. Our civil laws are rapidly changing which support ungodly activity such as sodomite unions (marriages). The Church must make judgments according to God's word and not what the civil law says is lawful. If we fail to do so we disgrace our Churches and shown contempt for the Lord's teachings.

The Church should act with all diligence and speed in excluding a member guilty of fornication or adultery as well as the other sins mentioned in I Corinthians 5:11 which commands us to: "not to keep company" or "no not to eat" with a brother or sister guilty of any of the sins mentioned. I believe this scripture is clearly teaching the church to exclude and not commune with such members. That doesn't mean that we are to never associate with them or with fornicators of the world "for then ye needs must go out of the world". This scripture has reference to Christian fellowship and identifies those we are not to commune with at the Lord's Table. There has been a tendency to only emphasize fornication in this commandment but as already indicated the scripture is referring to more than one sin. This scripture plainly indicates that we are not to eat (commune with) a brother (or sister) who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Since the scriptures are as clear as to the action a church is to take concerning a member who is guilty of one of the listed sins, it seems to me, there should be no difference of opinion over them being put out of the Church.

Many, but not all, the Primitive Baptists I was raised around believed that the sins of fornication and adultery were tantamount to selling a person's birthright; thus preventing them from joining or being restored to membership during their natural life. I had respect for those faithful Baptist I observed who held to that belief. I watched their stand in action and I am submissive to that practice, especially for unfaithfulness in marriage and the sin of adultery as described by the Lord in Matthew 19:9. Would it not be true that any child of God denied membership or excluded by the church is being denied their birthright to commune with the saints of God in a Church capacity? Whether that denial is for a life time depends on whether God will or has granted repentance. Members excluded for fornication or adultery among the Primitive Baptist has traditionally never been restored to membership even among those that didn't believe the birthright was forfeited by these two sins.

As previously mentioned most Liberal/Progressive movements are lax in church discipline. Their liberal views on adultery and fornication offend sister churches by harboring these sins in the church. This always leads to division and the Nashville peace meeting addressed this problem in item 10 of their report. They said " Each and every local church has the right to dispose of her local affairs as she deems proper; that is, she has the right to discipline her own members; but no church has the right to harbor and protect heretics, liars, fornicators, and the like, to the hurt and annoyance of sister churches." A liberal argument I've heard is that the church is sovereign and no other church can tell them how to discipline their members. Another argument is that if a person commits fornication or adultery but is not NOW living in that condition they should be retained in the church. That reasoning could and has lead to situations where a member gave in to temptation and committed fornication and immediately felt remorse and petitioned the church for forgiveness. Under the liberal view, the person should be retained in the church. The scriptures give no such option; they clearly say that a brother or sister that is a fornicator should not be retained in church fellowship. The 'not now living in' argument is just a ploy that is used to distort established Primitive Baptist practice which is to exclude adulterers and fornicators and in most cases were not restored to membership. All the listed offences in I Corinthians 5:11-13 require the church to exclude the offender and let them be reformed outside the church. "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (I Corinthians 5:11-13) Once again I want to emphasize that fornication is not the only sin mentioned in this verse. The fact that the church is commanded to put the guilty member outside the church where God judges them leaves no doubt in my mind that the reforming of an excluded member requires ample time to witness the evidence that God has granted repentance before the Church can entertain any thought of restoration for any of the sins under consideration.

To remain a true Church of Christ we must reject the liberal/progressive views on church discipline. By doing so, we retain our identity as the Church of Christ. Those that are unwilling to do so will eventually lose their identity. - Elder Claude McKee

Link A

http:\\www.essentialbaptistprinciples.org/ebp_published_articles/nashville_peace_meeting_recommendations.htm