Is Church Discipline Punitive?

Written by Eric VanDyken

It’s probably fair to say that niceness is a defining characteristic of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), even if it is perhaps somewhat superficial at times.  There is even a phrase used to describe this reality as “West Michigan Nice” that I have heard frequently, and it resembles the “Minnesota Nice” of my home state.  Without parsing this phraseology or phenomenon too deeply, I also believe it is fair to say that this niceness is motivated both by genuinely kind and loving hearts and also at times by a general aversion to conflict.  

The opposing idea to niceness is meanness.  We don’t like things that feel mean.  We rightly see being mean as antithetical to the spirit and nature of the Biblical witness, revealed most clearly in the person and work of Jesus.  Jesus was firm.  Jesus was a prophetic critic.  Jesus was honest.  But he was gentle in spirit (Matt. 11:29, Matt. 21:5, Isaiah 42:3), and all of his words were spoken in perfect love with the desired effect that people would be called into the Kingdom of God that he was ushering in.  We might think about the heart of Jesus as captured in the title and lyrics of the CityAlight song “Jesus Strong and Kind”.  Jesus is not mean, but kind, and we long to reflect that attribute.

Against this backdrop we saw the word “punitive” arise at Synod 2023, and it was wielded in such a way that the body of Synod seemed to react to the inherent or implied meanness of being punitive.  Punitive is defined by Merriam-Webster as “inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment”.  Merriam-Webster goes on to define punishment variously, including: “suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution” and “severe, rough, or disastrous treatment”.  In this light we typically view “punitive” as referring to words or actions that are retaliatory, retributive, or vengeful.  Those are not nice words or actions.  We shrink from the idea that our personal or corporate actions might be seen as retaliatory, or retributive, or vengeful. 

The context for the insertion of the word “punitive” was the consideration of follow-up action regarding Neland Avenue CRC as recommended by Committee 8.  Synod 2022’s Committee 2 had concluded that Neland had broken covenant with her sister churches by installing a deacon in a married lesbian relationship.  Based on the recommendations of Committee 2, Synod 2022 admonished Neland to rescind their appointment of this deacon and appointed an in loco committee to help correct and restore Neland.  When the in loco committee reported back to Synod 2023, they could not report that they had been successful in guiding Neland or Classis Grand Rapids East into compliance.  Conversely, they concluded as follows:

“Neland Avenue CRC has entered unprecedented territory by rejecting a "settled and binding" decision of synod regarding its ordination of a same-sex married deacon and refusing the correction of synod and its in loco committee. Classis Grand Rapids East has entered into uncharted territory by refusing to take disciplinary action with Neland Avenue CRC (both formally and informally) despite the admonition of synod, its in loco committee, and many other bodies (councils, classes,and the COD). For these reasons, synod is also in uncharted territory, faced with the decision of Neland Avenue CRC to ordain the same-sex married deacon in direct violation of synod's declarations on the matter in years past and now including the decisions in 2022. This has resulted in unprecedented actions from synod—and perhaps more in the summer of 2023.”

In light of this conclusion from the in loco committee, Committee 8 of Synod 2023 had proposed further oversight in a new in loco committee, including timelines for action from Neland and Classis Grand Rapids East that were not present in the initial efforts that were rebuffed.  As this recommendation of Committee 8 was considered on the floor a prominent voice rose and declared that the proposed action was “clearly punitive”.  Though no polls have been taken and we cannot search the hearts of delegates, it is broadly believed that this passionate speech and characterization swayed the floor of Synod such that the recommendation for further oversight and correction was defeated.  

So, was it right for this delegate to declare further discipline of Neland Avenue CRC as “clearly punitive” and for Synod 2023 to refuse to take further disciplinary action?  I believe that we can answer those questions with a resounding “No!” and I offer four points of refutation against the idea that church discipline as proposed for Neland Avenue CRC is punitive in nature:

1. The nature of past and proposed discipline for Neland Avenue CRC, 

2. The language of Church Order, 

3. The language of Scripture, and

4. The test.

The Nature of Past and Proposed Discipline for Neland Avenue CRC

Both the original and 2023-proposed in loco committees were formed with language that was couched in terms of correction, oversight, and care, not punishment.  The original in loco committee did not carry any authority to establish consequences for refusal to repent and seek restoration of covenant.  That committee was unable to accomplish that for which it was formed.  In that light, and in keeping with the disciplinary goal of the in loco committee process, the proposed follow-up committee formation included timelines and consequences. This is consistent with typical processes for church discipline, as a lack of repentance necessitates more urgent and meaningful actions over time.  The clear goal of the timeline and consequences is for correction, not punishment.  We understand this intuitively, as it is in our human nature to resist correction that is open-ended or without consequences. In both the original and proposed follow-up actions, Neland and Classis Grand Rapids East always had the ability to control the narrative and action by heeding the call of the broader body to return to covenant faithfulness.  This is love in action, not retribution or punishment.

The Language of Church Order

The language of the Church Order of the CRC is unambiguous about the purpose of church discipline.  Under the heading “The Admonition and Discipline of the Church”, Article 78 reads as follows:

“The purpose of admonition and discipline is to restore those who err to faithful obedience to God and full fellowship with the congregation, to maintain the holiness of the church, and thus to uphold God’s honor.”

Article 79 goes on to state:

“The members of the church are accountable to one another in their doctrine and life and have the responsibility to encourage and admonish one another in love.”

If the members of the church have the responsibility to act in love by holding one another accountable in doctrine and life for the express purposes of restoration to obedience, maintaining the holiness of the church, and upholding God’s honor, what is the church to do when initial attempts at discipline fail to achieve those ends?  Church Order lays out beginning to ending steps that must be taken. Continuing down the path of discipline (as was considered by Synod 2023) is a continuation of loving restoration.  To cast this process as punitive is to dramatically mischaracterize discipline as we understand, express, and seek to practice it.

The Language of Scripture

It is not by accident that our Church Order approaches and explains discipline as an act of loving correction and restoration.  The Church Order is merely taking its cues from Scripture, which is also unambiguous about the purpose of discipline, both in personal and communal terms.  A few passages to begin:

• “My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.” Proverbs 3:11-12

• “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.” Revelation 3:19

• “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” Proverbs 13:24

• “And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?  If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?  For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.  For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Hebrews 12:5-11

In a classic example of church discipline in action (I Cor. 5), the Apostle Paul instructs the church in an act of discipline with the purpose being “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord”.  Paul goes on to echo the language of Deuteronomy that the church is to purge the evil from among themselves.  The Church Order rightly also echoes this call to maintain the holiness of the church through discipline. 

Not only do these passages not picture discipline as a punitive act (breaking down), but rather as an act of building up through loving correction.

The Test

The test that I propose we apply is this: What would have happened if Neland had repented and vowed compliance with the mandates of Scripture as have been parsed and concluded by Synod?  Discipline would have ended!  Could this be said of church discipline if that discipline was intended as retribution or punishment as opposed to correction?  Clearly not.  If discipline was intended as retribution or punishment it would be carried out whether there was repentance or not.  Articles 81 and 84 of Church Order illustrate that repentance leads to a cessation of disciplinary actions and a restoration to fellowship.  That course of action cannot possibly be accurately described as punitive.

Conclusion

Discipline is hard.  Hard things can feel mean or punitive, but in the case of discipline the exact opposite is true.  We have a responsibility to love each other and the bride of Christ enough to hold each other accountable, even (perhaps especially) when it is hard.  To default on that responsibility may feel kind or gentle, but it really is an abandonment of Christian love, a love that is sacrificial and calls us to step out of what is comfortable for the sake of what is corrective, loving, purifying, and God-honoring.  May God grant that the CRC through her representatives at Synod 2024 can set right what Synod 2023 faltered on, which is to love deeply enough to follow through with discipline of those within our covenantal community who are deliberately and continually breaking covenant and publicly sinning in word and deed.