Church Discipline, Pt. 1

One subject that has been nibbling at the edges of this situation since its beginning is that of church discipline. We didn’t always mention them, but numerous times throughout the events described in the Epic there were veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) threats that disciplinary action would be taken against members of the Group if we didn’t “settle down and stop making trouble.” Whether or not there would be legitimate grounds for church discipline in a situation such as this is the subject of this two part exploration. We will first consider the question in abstract—whether discipline could or should be applied in any scenario in which a group of members finds themselves at odds with the pastor on a question of proper adherence to the Church Manual—and then consider the specific circumstances of our situation at Takoma Park.

So what are the delineated causes for which a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church may be brought up for church discipline? Here’s the full list:

"The reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are:
1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.
2. Violation of the law of God, such as worship of idols, murder, stealing, profanity, gambling, Sabbathbreaking, and willful and habitual falsehood.
3. Violation of the seventh commandment of the law of God as it relates to the marriage institution, the Christian home, and biblical standards of moral conduct.
4. Sexual abuse of children, youth, and vulnerable adults, fornication, promiscuity, incest, homosexual practice, the production, use or distribution of pornography, and other sexual perversions.
5. Remarriage of a divorced person, except the spouse who has remained faithful to the marriage vow in a divorce for adultery
or for sexual perversions.
6. Physical violence, including violence within the family.
7. Fraud of willful misrepresentation in business.
8. Disorderly conduct which brings reproach upon the church.
9. Adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization.
10. Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.
11. The use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages.
12. The use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption.
13. The use or manufacture of illicit drugs or the misuse of, or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs”
(pp. 61, 62).

A church leader seeking a cause against an individual or group in this sort of situation would probably cite reason #9, “Adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization,” as it is the only cause with any possibility of making sense in this sort of situation. In doing so it would be necessary to establish that the movement in question was, indeed, “divisive or disloyal.” It would be difficult to argue that such a movement was disloyal because the whole point of a movement arguing for proper adherence to the Manual would be to maintain loyalty to the church. As for being divisive, it’s a quality which is open to highly subjective interpretation. A church leader seeking to silence opposition to questionable activities would be likely to label the least objection as “divisiveness” because doing so would give them at least the appearance of the moral high ground, but that’s not the way the Church Manual uses the term.

The Manual makes specific provisions for the resolution of questions and disagreements wholly separate from any consideration of discipline, which makes it clear that the divisiveness spoken of as a cause for discipline is something other than honest intellectual disagreement.

“Church officers and leaders, pastors, and members should consult with their conference for advice pertaining to the operating of their congregation or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If they do not reach mutual understanding, they should consult with their union conference/mission for clarification” (p.20). This statement is taken from the chapter entitled, “Why a Church Manual?” under the subheading, “Where to Get Advice.”

“When differences arise in or between churches and conferences or institutions, appeal to the next higher constituent level is proper until it reaches an Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee or the General Conference Session” (p.31). This statement comes from the chapter entitled, “Organization and Authority” under the subheading, “General Conference the Highest Authority.”

We can see from these two statements that the Church does not expect or demand uniformity of thought or blind obedience from its members. Rather, it anticipates that as part of healthy church interaction and intellectual development there will, from time to time, arise differences. It then provides means for resolving those differences without any implication of wrongdoing or guilt on the part of those partaking in the dispute.

On the other hand, the very fact that divisiveness is mentioned as part of a cause for discipline does indicate that it is possible to exceed the boundaries of reasonable intellectual disputation. So where is this line drawn?

“Reconciliation of Differences—Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere. Reconciliation of differences within the church should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the Church or to civil litigation” (p.59).

“The same principles that influence resolution of differences among members apply to the settlement of grievances of members against Church organizations and institutions” (p.61).

“When the Church, endeavoring to assist in timely and amicable settlement of differences among its members, recommends a solution, members should not summarily reject the recommendation. …Members who demonstrate impatience and selfishness by their unwillingness to wait for and accept recommendations of the Church in the settlement of grievances against other church members may properly be subject to the discipline of the church because of the disruptive effect on the Church and their refusal to recognize properly constituted Church authority” (pp. 60, 61).

From these statements we derive two principles by which to differentiate between reasonable and divisive disputation. First, reasonable parties address the situation in “the smallest possible sphere.” This also is a very subjective statement, as parties will very possibly not agree on what the “smallest possible sphere” is, but it is at least a guide. Second, reasonable parties wait for and accept the recommendations provided by the Church (or appeal the decision within the specified system). Divisive behavior worthy of discipline, then, would be that which ignores these two principles. Movements or organizations which adhere to these principles in addressing disputes should not be harassed with threats of discipline, as they have done nothing to warrant them.