Discipline Clarification

A friend who was reading my thoughts challenged me on what I have laid out as proper guidelines for church discipline. Below is an excerpt from his communication followed by my response which hopefully clarifies my position.

Napoleon was once asked, “How big is the size of your army?” and he wisely replied, “It is not the size of my army that matters, but how big my enemy thinks my army is.” The Bible says it like this, “be removed from the appearance of evil.”

You’ve stated that, there must be clear, conclusive evidence of the sin or error before one may confront/accuse a brother, but must it always be so? This absolute? Example: If a brother decided to move in with his girlfriend, would you not confront him on the issue?

1. Fact 1: There is no place in scripture that states a man can not live with a woman. (If there is, I’ve missed it)
2. Fact 2: Just because an unmarried brother is living in the same house with his girl does not mean he is sleeping with her.

Yet why is this lifestyle/action unacceptable? Because it gives the appearance of evil. Between the brother and God there is no sin, yet in our eyes and even more so in the world’s perspective he is sleeping with her. I am reminded of when Eli confronted Hannah when he thought she was drunk with wine before the Lord, however this was not the case. Was Eli wrong in approaching Hannah? Was not Hannah doing what was right? Where is the balance?

Good question. Where is the balance? He is right, I would confront my friend who decided to move in with his girlfriend. Why? Simply because it is not fleeing the appearance of evil. How does his actions spur him or others onto Godliness and holiness? That's just it they don't. This brother has broken a law of God which is to flee temptation. He is living with temptation, and creating temptation for others to gossip and slander.

But the question begs further depth. I want to make it clear that there are different standards for those in leadership, then there are for those who are not. If the brother mentioned above was in a leadership position within the body, he should be forced to step down should he desire to continue his current behavior. Why? For the sake of the weaker brothers and sisters who might not be as "STRONG" (tongue-in-cheek) as he. However, should he be excommunicated for such behavior? If so where does excommunication end?

If we should start excommunicating members at every appearance of evil, then who would be left? The whole church of America would be excommunicated, on mere opinions! After all there are opinions on everything ranging from rated R movies, to secular music, to profanity, to drinking alcohol, to dancing, to smoking, to lying, to pride, to greed, to lust, even to being rich! The list could go on and on. When would it ever end? That is why - when in regards to church discipline - specifically discipline possibly leading to excommunication - we need to have concrete evidence for excommunicating a brother. Excommunication should not be taken so lightly as to disfellowship a brother on the mere violation of another's conscience.

So my answer to the question: "Must it be this absolute?" Absolutely yes! We must not excommunicate for the appearance of evil. Asking someone to step down from leadership for the appearance of evil is not out of the question, but also should not be the rule of law. There has to be room for discernment, and hearing the heart of God on the matter. We should not be so quick to execute justice, and desire at all times to extend mercy. Confronting someone for their actions, is not synonymous with the discipline process - nor should it be. Church discipline should be reserved for times when a brother is in willful, unrepentant sin. Sin that can be proven with facts, evidence, law and truth.