Greenville Syndrome — How
If you’re wondering how this Greenville Syndrome works, here’s proof from a recent article, “Discipline for Discipleship,” by Greenville pastor Tony Miller from the Bob Jones University’s publication Today’s Christian Preacher, Winter 2010.
When the word discipline enters your mind, do you also think of the word disciple? These two English words come from the same Latin word: discipulus. Discipline is the process and a disciple is the intended product. Years ago in a church history class, Dr. Edward Panosian explained the threefold purpose of local church discipline. He told the seminarians that the purpose was first to remove leaven from the lump (I Corinthians 5:6-8); second, to restore the sinning brother to fellowship with God first and then to fellowship with the local church (2 Corinthians 2:5-11); and third, to teach other to fear or reverence scriptural standards (I Timothy 5:19-20). The goal of church discipline should be to bring about these three biblical objectives and produce disciples.
Our motives normally determine the manner and method in which we deal with people. In the book of Ephesians, Paul said to keep “speaking the truth in love.” Speaking truth should be done out of a motive of love and in a loving manner. Discipline requires speaking the truth. As a parent may have to discipline his or her child out of love, so the church may have to discipline a member out of love with the goal of helping that member put God first.
Undisciplined individuals are self-indulgent. The list of the fruit of the Spirit ends with ‘temperance’ or self-control. For the believer, the purpose of self-denial (by putting God first) is to become a proper disciple (Matthew 16:24).
Too many Bible-preaching churches are unwilling to obey the Lord in the steps of church discipline. However, church discipline has been ordered by the Lord for our benefit. What are these steps?
- Private confrontation of person sin–go alone and, if necessary, repeatedly (Matthew 18:15).
- Public confrontation of established sins, especially of church leaders (I Timothy 5:19-20). The sin, if not admitted, must be established by two or three eyewitnesses.
- Plural collaboration–two or three witnesses (Matthew 18:16; I Timothy 5:19; 2 Corinthians 13:1).
- Public disclosure (within the church) of personal sin if not repented. “Tell it to the church” (Matthew 18:17a).
- Public correction (by the church) of personal or public sin if not repented. “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:17).
- Treatment of the unrepentant former church member as unsaved (Matthew 18:17b).
- Private association forbidden with unrepentant former church members (I Corinthians 5:9-12).
- Personal reconciliation with the disciplined brother if he repents at any stage of the process (Luke 17:1-3; Matthew 18:15; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11).
- Public restoration of a publicly repentant former member (2 Corinthians 2).
- Progressive restoration of the repentant church member to certain biblical ministries.
The ten steps listed above need some clarification. If the sinner repents at any stage, he should be forgiven. The church should distinguish between fellowship, membership and leadership in restoring one who is forgiven. Forgiveness should be given instantaneously because God restores fellowship with the individual who asks forgiveness. He forgives for Christ’s sake, not because the sinning brother deserves it (Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13).
When a church has removed an unrepentant brother from membership, it usually is better to withhold membership until he cures his wrongdoing (making restitution, telling the truth to those to whom he has lied, reconciling his marriage, gaining victory over drugs, etc.). Leadership positions might never be restored. For example, a Sunday school teacher might return to teaching God’s Word after a sufficient time has lapsed for a credible testimony to be reestablished; but a pastor who becomes sexually involved with a woman other than his wife would always be doubted in biblical preaching and counseling on the family. The majority of a pastor’s counseling time deals with family needs. Therefore, the life of a pastor or a deacon must be blameless in moral issues (“the husband of one wife”) so that family counseling and preaching can be authoritative.
If the sin is private, keep it private if the person is repentant. If the sin is public, then public confession and restoration is necessary. The sin of the incestuous man of I Corinthians 5 was public and not repented; therefore, Paul publicly rebuked and asked for removal of the leaven of this unrepentant brother (v. 7).
When a Christian sins privately against another Christian, the one sinned against is told to “go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” The Greek for go implies continuing confrontation if necessary. Ken Sande in his book The Peacemaker says go several times alone to repent. If private confrontation does not work, two or three other church members should go with the offended brother as witnesses.
Public correction is the next step for an unrepentant church member. After repeated confrontations, unrepentant members should be removed from membership. In I Corinthians 6:1-5, Paul points out the importance of having Christians urge matters among themselves.
If the unrepentant member withdraws his membership before the church votes, a church cannot legally proceed with an official vote. However, if a second church requests from the first church a letter of release from membership for the unrepentant one, the leadership of the first church can tell the second church that the individual is not in good standing.
Paul makes it clear that we should not “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” (I Corinthians 5:11). Jesus said to treat an unrepentant brother who has trespassed against another Christian as a heathen man and a publican (Matthew 18:17). Obviously, though, a mate or a blood relative should relate naturally to the one who has been disciplined.
Early in one of my church pastorates, a teenage church member who admitted to immorality refused to listen to appeals calling for repentance. With brokenness we voted to remove this one from membership.
It is essential that a church have a clear constitution and that it publish clear information regarding what is required of members. Often, pastors are concerned that they will scare people away if they spell out on the front end what is expected of church members. In fact, the opposite may be true. One Sunday our church leadership asked a person in public sin to ask for forgiveness. That person stood before the church and asked for forgiveness and asserted repentance A visiting Bible student who witnessed the event came and said, “I want to become a member of this church. I have never seen this done where I come from.”
Scriptural church discipline has been ordered by the Lord for our benefit. We cannot please Him by ignoring His instruction. The steps should be followed in order and carried out in love. The desire and prayer of the church must be that the offending brother will respond positively and be restored. “If he shall hear thee, thou has gained they brother” (Matthew 18:15).
Anybody care to discern where the Bible ends and Greenville Syndrome begins? My favorite is paragraph #6.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2010/02/greenville-syndrome-how/trackback/
Comments
That’s just creepy. As it was when I was a student and a faculty member. I knew it in my heart then.
Posted by: Maggie | February 7th, 2010 23:02
Is your reference to paragraph 6 talking about the one that starts “When a church has removed a repentant brother…”?
I assume that’s just an inartfully written/edited statement since one wouldn’t remove a repentant brother…or would one?
Posted by: Watchman | February 8th, 2010 14:59
Watchman! How funny!! And weird. You’re right that that was a typo. A goof. Ack!! I fixed it.
It’s more the rest of that sentence: “until he cures his wrongdoing” is a pretty messed up thing to say.
Posted by: cklewis | February 8th, 2010 17:04
Hello,
I graduated from BJU in 1983.
As preface, I’ll just say this: I think a lot of the excesses that may be found at the school are a result of there being too little grace and Gospel preached there, by which I mean that grace and Gospel must be preached to the converted just as urgently as to the unsaved. Instead, in many cases, law is preached, not for justification, but too often for sanctification.
That being said, I do not really understand your point in this post. This outline of church disipline is generally biblical – the catch always is, what are the issues of conduct that promopt such dicipline?
For example, I don’t see how you can escape the Biblical requirement that unrepentent fornicators who call themselves believers have to be disciplined ultimately by expulsion from the church.
So I don’t find the material posted in this item “creepy” at all – it sounds mostly like sound biblical teaching. Could you explain exactly where you believe it departs from Scripture?
Thanks!
John Pittman Hey
Greenwood, MS
Posted by: John Pittman Hey | February 10th, 2010 19:50
Hey, John! Nice to meet you.
Overall, I believe that the core of the problem begins and ends with Miller’s definition of sin which he really doesn’t explain. He presents the God v. Me construction (whatever I want must be at direct odds with God and, thus, must be sin) alone as his definition. This is very problematic and not biblical.
The other problem is the process he describes. “Until he cures his wrongdoing” is the worst phrase in the whole article, imo. Miller holds up perfection as the standard, and without any clarification as to what sin actually is, we’re left with Miller’s idiosyncrasies and comfort level to define sin.
I have absolutely no problem with an unrepentant adulterer (just thinking of one situation that I’m familiar with) being removed from the Covenant community. In fact, I probably would add many benefits to Paul’s description of the reasons why this is necessary. A spouse who is sinned against needs “back up” from the elders. S/he does. It’s necessary for the health of the church and the family.
But what happens is that people get church-disciplined for music they list on facebook, for not wearing a suit on Sunday morning, or for asking too many questions. These are all real situations that have happened in the BJU orbit churches just in the recent past. Miller’s description here is entirely pastor-centric with the pastor holding all the power and not even foregrounding the biblical boundaries of sin and the biblical idea of progressive sanctification.
Generally, I’m assuming we agree more than not, John. Because the biblical definition of sin is so lacking in fundamentalism and because it’s so essential to the church discipline process, I find this a serious lack in Miller’s article.
Posted by: cklewis | February 10th, 2010 21:18
Camille,
I was totally lost at first because I thought miller had everything pretty close to what scripture says and I had no clue what your point was. (sorry) I’m glad you clarified it in your comments.
But I do need make a distinction here for you. Schools like BJ are institutions not a local church bodies. Miller is writing to pastors of local churches not to presidents or disciplinarians of schools.
Miller made it fairly clear what sins he was talking about when he said . . .
I think you are being unfair in YOUR estimation that
first it is easy to say that discipline is happening and it is another to actually site churches and events and people.
Second I would not want to be part of any local community of believers who who would practice it for such things and any one who gets out of them should count it a blessing not as something negative
Third your estimation
This fails to account for the fact that he pointed out the steps that should be taken before it ever gets to the level of leadership of the church. I think the Pastor-centric thing is in your mind.. the only way this in anyway is pastor-centric is because he wrote it for pastors to read in a magazine that is primarily for pastors.
I think you may have failed to read the entire article, because miller stated the sins pretty clearly
We should NEVER join with any group church or school and “covenant” with them if we do not intent to keep that covenant. Its basically a vow before God that you make with other believes. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with all of them, but you should follow all of them while you are a member.
There are many things I don’t agree with BJ on . . . and there are even more groups that associate with BJ that I don’t agree with and many that are in some way even harming the name of Christ.
But I think the number of former BJ students that feel they must attack anything associated with the institution that obviously did some good in their lives is just sad. Please don’t misunderstand me, if we hold them and their affiliates as fellow believers then we should be “speaking the truth in love” to them and helping them correct areas where we feel they are not aligned with scripture, But many of them are still brothers, and we are to be promoting a spirit of unity and a bond of peace in the church, that is why these disciplinary actions are important.
Kindest regards.
Posted by: Ethan | February 23rd, 2010 13:42
First of all, Ethan, why are you assuming that I’m talking about BJU? I’m not at all. I’m talking about churches. Churches in Greenville have disciplined people for joining Facebook groups, for missing a single mortgage payment, and for not wearing ties on Sunday morning. Those are all facts and they are all in **churches**.
But see — that’s interesting. Because I said that before, but that fact was easily dismissed in your reading. That’s a very important fact. That’s why Miller’s take is pastor-centric and not at all Bible-centric. The determination of sin is wholly in the Pastor’s mind.
Just like these three examples I’ve mentioned.
Sure it’s a blessing if you get out. But that’s so easy to say while people are still reeling from the spiritual blows they’ve just received from their undershepherd. Nobody’s calling out these pastors’ errors. My attempts here (and on FB) are met with intense antagonism. So if you’re stuck in one of these churches and your pastor calls you in to tell you of your sin of joining a FB group that “even his wife” thinks is “sitting in the seat of the scorner,” it is very, very hard to think straight. Very hard. I’m trying to help people think straight.
I saw Miller’s caveat that the rules must be clearly stated ahead of time. I read it. I laughed at it. Because there’s no possible church constitution that says that if you miss a house payment, you’ll lose your Sunday school class. None. See the problem?
As for your usually stated:
That, too, is another way to avoid my point and blame the victim. As long as the pastors have all the power and the God’s definition of sin is nowhere seen, this will continue.
I’m calling us back to the Word. And this is controversial? For Protestants?? Gee whiz. . . .
Posted by: cklewis | February 23rd, 2010 15:12
I totally agree with you that the cases you are sighting are egregious at best and in NO way fall into the Biblical Mandate for discipline. Totally!
And I’m in no way trying to shift the blame upon the victim, It wasn’t explained at all in your original post and was confused by that, I thought this all stemming from earlier post siting BJ. Sorry about that..
I’m just defending what Miller wrote, because it pretty well falls in line with the Word. The individual cases and pastors you have in mind may not be, but what miller wrote is sound.
Again I hold to my point that we should never join with a group and covenant with them if we do not intend to keep all of that covenant. So the obedience in something small like wearing a coat or tie (which I do not
is really a non issue on both sides and neither should have an issue with it. I once went to a church that required women to cover their heads if participating in the service on stage. To some that was ridiculous to others it was ridiculous but they wished to be a part of the church so they submitted in that area and joined.
Again I’m not trying to shift blame in any case that I know absolutely nothing about, but a TIE? or Coat? And How in the world is the church getting involved over mortgage payments? And why is the church not helping them make it? You can understand my suspicion. If its all true RUN people RUN, head for “higher ground”
Posted by: Ethan | February 23rd, 2010 18:01