Inaugurated Eschaton: A Dialogue with N.T. Wright on Church Discipline and Eschatology

“Inaugurated Eschaton: A Dialogue with N.T. Wright on Church Discipline and Eschatology” Bio. Introduction: Thomas Lyons is a Ph.D. Biblical Studies candidate at Asbury Theological Seminary with research interests in Luke-Acts Pneumatology, Holiness, and the Kingdom of God. He is a teaching intern at Asbury Theological Seminary and additionally serves as Assistant to Craig Keener (Editor-in-Chief) for IBR’s Bulletin for Biblical Research. Thomas lives in Lexington, Kentucky with his wife Amber and three children, Adellyn, Wesley, and Victoria, where they are part of the Lexington Vineyard community. In his recent Paul and the Faithfulness of God, N.T. Wright suggests in a discussion of 1 Corinthians that the church’s disciplinary practices are intimately connected with its eschatology, such that when “faced with flagrant scandal, the church must do in the present among its own membership what the one God will do in the future in relation to the rest of the world.” N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:978. For Wright, the same inaugurated eschatology that suggests the church is to be a foretaste of the life to come also suggests the future judgment by the saints Cf. Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; Rev 2:26; 20:4. is worked out through church discipline in the present by the power of the Spirit. This paper will survey New Testament passages on church discipline by examining them in their literary and socio-historical contexts in order to assess to what degree eschatology is linked to exclusionary practices of church discipline so that the appropriateness of N.T. Wright’s claim may be evaluated. Finally, the paper will conclude with a brief hermeneutical discussion evaluating how these insights may apply to compassionately ministering and serving within the contemporary church. Church Discipline in the New Testament This first section will briefly define church discipline and broadly survey church discipline practices as they appear throughout the NT documents. It should be noted from the outset that “church discipline” as a formal phrase does not appear in the NT. This is not to suggest that formal church discipline as a practice was absent from early Christian communities—in fact it was very much at home within these contexts, although not necessarily in the sense that it has been understood in our contemporary church contexts. Church discipline in its ancient context was understood as a means of establishing right order and right relationship within the community. Paul likens this responsibility of apostles and community leaders to that of a οἰκονόμος, or household manager or steward, who are ultimately “answerable to their kyrios [Lord].” Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:977. The practice of church discipline likely originates from Jesus' own teachings, Matt 18:15-20 which themselves seem to be firmly rooted in similar Jewish admonition and reproof practices. See Sifra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sifre Deut. 1.3.2; c. ‘Arak. 16b, bar.; Shab. 119b; Tamid 28a, bar.; Gen. Rab 54:3. While there was great diversity amongst various Jewish sects, recurrent elements of this practice within the various sects included reproof that was preferably conducted in private, b. Sanh. 101a. It should be noted that, as observed by Craig Keener, Jewish sages did “hyperbolically rule that publically shaming one’s fellow warrants exclusion from the coming age.” See Keener, Matthew, 453. admonition preceding punishment, Sifre Deut. 173.1.2; p. Sanh. 7:6, §2 being done with a right attitude, 1QS 5.25; CD 7.2-3 and continued until either repentance or decisive defense of the one being admonished. 1QS 5.25; CD 7.2-3. For a fuller discussion of this subject, see Craig Keener, Matthew, 453. Similarly, in that 1st century context, synagogues served as local courts in addition to their religious functions. See T.E. Schmidt, “Discipline”, in DPL, 215 This process was driven by the need for evidence Syr. Men. Sent. 142; t. Sanh. 8:3 and witnesses were essential. The foundation for this practice seems to be Deut 17:6-7 and 19:5 and later Jewish sources often pointed back to these roots. see Jos. Life 256; Ant. 4.219; CD 9.17-23; 11QTemple61.6-7; 64.8; Sifre §3 Likewise, the process of coming before a group of witnesses and then before the larger community is likewise reflected in some Jewish writings. see 1QS 5.25-6.1; CD 9.3-4 Later rabbinic writings also suggest that 1st century Pharisaic practice included “bans” that could be leveled at individuals for issues of ritual purity or heretical views. These bans were considered a temporary measure intended to bring about repentance and return the individuals to full community participation. During these bans, individuals could “participate in Jewish public life, including Temple worship,” and they could likewise receive instruction. It is not clear if bans could be permanent although it seems a reasonable assumption for unrepentant and heretical individuals, given the evidence available. For a fuller discussion of this, see T.E. Schmidt, “Discipline”, in DPL, 215 The echoes of this practice in Christian communities should be apparent. The process of this practice within ekklesia [church] communities included attempts to persuade offenders away from their present course, through individual and communal intercession, E.g. Matt 18:15-16; 2 Cor 13:1-2; Gal 6:1; 2 Thess 3:15 followed by various forms of exclusionary disciplinary measures. These measures may involve food or even exclusion from the Eucharist (2 Thess 3:11; 1 Cor 5:11) or even community expulsion (Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 5:1-13; 16:22). The goal of each stage of the process was the repentance and restoration of the individual back into community life. E.g. Matt 18:15; Luke 17:3; Jas 5:19-20; 2 thess 3:12-14. The boundaries of this practice begin and end with self-discipline, as church discipline begins when self-discipline fails and ends when it is reasserted. Adams, 41 Correction was to be marked by compassion, gentleness, humility, and preparedness for forgiveness. Matt 18:21-35; Eph 4:29-32; Gal 6:1-5; Col 3:12-13; 1 Thess 5:14-15; 2 Cor 2:5-11; 2 Tim 2:25-26 While initial correction appears to be handled personally and privately between Christians, Matt 18:15; Gal 6:1-5. this could escalate to include additional witnesses and community leadership as needed. Matt 18:16-20; 1 Tim 5:19-22; 2 Cor 13:1-2; It could also include corporate warnings as well. Rom 16:17; 2 Thess 3:6-15 Epistemic humility is demanded of participants in this process as Christ-followers are called to treat individuals “as believers” (2 Thess 3:15). Even at the conclusion of the process, individuals are to be treated “as sinners or Gentiles” (Matt 18:17). This process of discipline is a functional evaluation of the congruence between word and deed. It was likely understood, as noted by Davies and Allison, that “the halakic decisions of the community have the authority of heaven itself.” W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, International Critical Commentary. 3 vols. Vol. 2: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 787. Despite this understanding, there seems to be awareness that such judgment can be wrong, as observed in the epistemic humility noted previously, or abused, as seen by the inappropriate disciplinary actions of Diotrephes in 3 John. Cf. 3 John 9-12 Dis-fellowshipping, the final consequence of the process, is described in various ways, including “remove him from your midst,” (1 cor 5:2), “clean out the leaven,” (1 cor 5:7) “Get him out of your midst,“ 1 cor 5:13 “deliver this person to Satan,” 1 tim 1:20 and “treat him as a heathen and a tax collector.“ Matt 18:17 When the phrase “removal from the midst” occurs in Septuagintal texts, Deut 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:24; 24:7. Septuagintal texts are Greek texts of the Hebrew Bible (although not exclusively). it always carries the consequence of removal from the midst for the purpose of being put to death. As such, exclusionary practice might be said to be the ancient Christian equivalent of capital punishment and could be described as symbolic of spiritual death. Interestingly, failure to exercise exclusion in at least one of these Septuagintal texts is labeled as rebellion against God and those culpable were likewise subject to the same consequences. For a brief discussion see adams, 84 In the absence of the church’s action to carry out church discipline, various NT texts suggest that God himself steps in to exercise discipline and judgment when the church will not. See 1 Cor 11:17-32. Paul suggests that God has struck some ill and took the lives of others and that “if we carefully judged ourselves, we wouldn’t be judged.” Similar sentiments may also be observed in 2 Peter 2, as well as potentially Revelation (particularly the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira). Additionally the death of Ananias and Sapphira could potentially be understood this way in Acts 5, although that seems less an issue of disobedient leadership, as it is one of ignorant leadership. Correction and discipline seems to be primarily focused on issues of immoral behavior 2 Thess 3:6-15; 1 Cor 5:1-13; 1 Tim 5:19-22; 2 Tim 4:2; Tit 1:9, 13; 2:15; 2 Tim 2:25-26; and issues of doctrine, particularly when such a topic causes division. 1 Cor 1:10-11; 11:18-19; Gal 5:2-12; 1 Tim 1:20 Preeminent amongst the moral concerns is porneia practice, which seems to be explicitly and implicitly present in a number of circumstances recorded in the New Testament. Obvious examples of this are in the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor 5:1-13; 1 Cor 6), which will be discussed more fully later. Less obvious may be in passages like Jude where those being spoken about are clearly likened to those practicing grievous sexual immorality as Sodom and Gamorrah did (Jude 7-8). Interestingly, Jude 4 suggests these people have snuck back into communities who were previously οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα. Most translators translate this as having some type of preordination or prior prophetic judgment (“who long ago were designated for this condemnation”), but this phrase could potentially be translated in very concrete manner thusly, “the ones written about previously to (regarding) this verdict/judgment” and the clause that follows is the prior judgment. This might suggest that those who snuck back into the Jude community had been subjected to the disciplinary evaluation of another community and been formerly written/warned about. Eschatology and Church Discipline But to what degree are exclusionary practices linked to eschatology? It is clear from 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 that Paul envisages some degree of present judgment through exclusionary practices. He seems to clarify in the context that exclusionary practices are to be reserved for those who claim to be a follower of Christ with their words yet betray such commitment with their actions. 1 Cor 5:11 God clearly bears the burden of judging the world in this context, This is observed in the assumed negative answer to the question of 1 cor 5:12a: “ For what have I to do with judging those outside?,” and the corresponding explicit claim to such in 13a: “God will judge those outside.” This is similarly echoed in Rom 2:16. but the implications from the rhetorical question of 1 Cor 5:12: “Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge?” paired with the quotation of Deut 17:7 “Drive out the wicked person from among you” (in 1 Cor. 5:13b), suggests that present judgment of those within the eschatological kingdom community is a responsibility of the oikonomos, the household managers. Which is a continuation of the ideas that introduce this discussion from1 cor 4:1. It is this element that Wright picks up on and suggests that, “The internal discipline of the church is therefore a kind of anticipated eschatology, lodged between the verdict that has already been pronounced by Paul and the verdict that will come on the last day.” Wright, PFG, 978, emphasis his. Wright goes on to note that a similar sentiment is echoed in 1 Cor 11:29-32. This approach of Wright’s to eschatologically realized judgment shouldn’t be too surprising for those with familiarity of Wright’s corpus, for it is obviously present elsewhere in his work, notably in how he understands Jesus’ pronouncements against Jerusalem and the Temple and their destruction as YHWH’s eschatological judgment breaking into the present. See Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 320-442. For a short concise summary of this, see particularly 417-18. Wright suggests “for the Messiah’s people the future verdict, in this case ‘judgment,’ is brought forward into the present, in order that it may be finished” and that this present judgment does not affect the ultimate status of believers. Wright, PFG, 979. Wright goes on to suggest, “We are given to understand that when the future condemnation arrives in the present in the form of discipline, whether imposed by the church itself, as Paul envisages in chapter 5, or in the form of divine punishment as here, this does not affect the basic status of believers, who have already been assured of their justification (6.11). Indeed, this is the way in which any future condemnation that might have seemed appropriate is dealt with here and now precisely in order to maintain that future verdict intact.” (PFG, 979, emphasis mine). It seems that Wright is suggesting that the judgment enacted in the present replaces the final judgment so that salvation is preserved by their That is, for Wright, judgment in the present deals with sin in such a way that averts future judgment, although it is not clear whether Wright is suggesting that present judgment is replacing future judgment or whether it is serving as a “wakeup call” to initiate repentance, which would likewise advert future judgment at the Eschaton. Wright acknowledges that present judgment as a “wakeup call” to initiate repentance is a possibility by a brief citation of Sampley in the footnotes, but the placement and tone of this acknowledgment seems to suggest that this alternative is a secondary possibility to the position he is advancing. See Wright, PFG, 979n570. At various points in Wright’s consideration of Church discipline, he arguably entertains an over-realized eschatology that suggests the church’s actions in the present enact the Eschaton and effect judgment. There are certainly a few other texts that could be interpreted in such a way as to lend support to Wright’s position. Jesus’ claim that, “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” in Matthew 18:18 could be interpreted to support a similar realized-Eschaton position, especially given that the language Jesus uses here reflects the practice of putting people under bans or acquitting them, which are both observed in later rabbinic usage. ladd, presence of the future, 275; also ladd, NT theology, 116 Similarly, the various descriptions of church discipline as resulting in the destruction of one’s flesh or handing over to Satan, of which there is abundant debate around the meaning of these phrases, could similarly be interpreted to support realized eschatological judgment in the present. E.g. 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20 Finally, present, realized eschatological judgment is more clear in the instances where God is directly acting, such as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts Acts 5:1-11 and in the warnings to the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira in Revelation. Rev 2:16, 21-23. Such judgment is particularly apparent in the case of Jezebel in Thyatira, where Jesus says he has given her time to repent but implies that her time of repentance may have passed. Despite Wright’s evaluation and these potentially supporting passages, it is not clear that the exclusionary practices are efficacious in enacting eschatological judgment, as Wright seems to suggest. It is true that the judgment associated with church discipline is paralleled with God’s eschatological judgment of the world in 1 Cor 5:11-13. Similarly, believer’s role as eschatological judges is invoked in a greater-to-lesser argument in 1 Cor 6:2-3. But in both of these cases, the present judgments by believers in church discipline practices are not clearly or directly linked to the eschatological status of future believers. Even the passages that speak most clearly of God’s eschatological judgment in the present, those in Acts and Revelation, are not linked to church discipline but instead to God’s present activity in history. Such a position likewise goes against various calls not to judge by Jesus, Matt 7:1f James, James 4:11-12 and even Paul from earlier in the very same letter. 1 Cor 4:4-5; Rom 14:4, 10, 13 Jesus’ command not to judge (Matt 7:1ff) is an issue of avoiding eschatological judgment, as rightly noted by John Nolland who observes “In Matthew the whole word group (krin-, krim-, kris-) is used overwhelmingly for the eschatological judgment of God.” Nolland, Matthew (NIGTC), 318. The main exceptions being 12:18, 20; 23:23, although a case could potentially be made for 12:18 as eschatological in nature, and 5:21-22, although even here the law court image is being paralleled eschatological judgement. Nolland is likely correct in assessing that negative judgment, that is eschatological condemnation, is what will hopefully be avoided with Jesus’ exhortation. That is, prohibitions of declaring eschatological judgment in the present seems to be precisely what is in view for Jesus in Matthew. This is not to say that believers do not have some positive judiciary role at the Eschaton (Mt 19:28) but that such activity needs to be reserved for such a time. The same may be similarly said of the prohibitions against judgment in the 1 Corinthians and Romans texts 1 Cor 4:4-5; Rom 14:4, 10, 13. Note that the exact same word (krinw) is being used in Paul’s prohibition of judging in 1 Cor 4 and exhortations to judge in 1 Cor 5 and 6. where final eschatological judgment seems to be in view rather than present judgment in history by believers through church discipline. Assuming there is any theological continuity between these texts, and even internally within some of these texts (Matthew and 1 Corinthians specifically), then one has to assume that the calls for and against judging must have different referents. Additionally, the calls to treat individuals in this process “as believers” 2 Thess 3:15 or “as Gentiles and tax collectors” Matt 18:17 only further seems to reinforce that the true final ruling of judgment at the Eschaton is not determined in the church discipline process but by the one true Judge at the Eschaton. These passages demand a degree of epistemic humility as believers in the present do not know the Judge’s final ruling but such demands do not and should not restrict the ekklesia community from maintaining right order, correcting bad or divisive theology and confronting destructive or sinful behaviors. The presence of this epistemic gap should give church leaders and even those under discipline room to proverbially “breath easier,” as even in the face of bad rulings in the present (of which even NT documents are aware that such a result is possible) 3 John 9-12, there is a Judge who will set everything right at the Eschaton. One final element that suggests church discipline is not efficacious in enacting the Eschaton is the role of repentance and forgiveness that suffuses Christian disciplinary practices. The presence of forgiveness is found abundantly throughout the writings around church discipline, something that arguably distinguishes this practice from similar ancient practices in Judaism. T.E. Schmidt, “Discipline”, in DPL, 215 With repentance, Jesus demands a limitless forgiveness Luke 17:3-4; Matt 18:21-22 and suggests corresponding divine judgment will come to those who do not forgive in such circumstances. Matt 18:23-35 The very presence and opportunity for forgiveness suggests that the conclusions of church discipline processes are not final as they can always be commuted with repentance and the result is always forgiveness. These practices then, like many other aspects of the Kingdom, are caught between the tension of the now and the not yet, being proleptic in character yet not final and able to be commuted still in the present. Despite the clear eschatological limitations that have been established in the prior pages, it needs to be noted that church discipline does have significant ties to eschatology. It is certainly intended to turn away and prevent destruction of either an individual or a community at the Eschaton. Numerous examples of this can be found in Paul’s writings, in the pastorals, and even in the letters to the churches in Revelation. Jude 22-23; 1 John 5:16-17; James 5:19-20; Gal 6:7-8; 1 Tim 1:19b-20; Titus 3:10-11; Rev 2-3. Likewise, the actions of believers can bring about judgment on themselves, both in the present and at the Eschaton, but it is not the church discipline process that is affecting the judgment. This is also not to say that church discipline is not proleptic of final eschatological judgment. It is; it is simply not efficacious of final judgment. So, in sum, Wright is correct to identify the proleptic character of church discipline as it may, when done in congruence with the Holy Spirit, point towards what final eschatological judgments may be levied at disobedient believers. But to suggest that such discipline in the present in some way effects or replaces final eschatological judgment, as Wright seems to entertain at various points, is a proverbial ‘bridge too far.’ Final thoughts If one is uncomfortable with this practice, I think that such a feeling is appropriate as these exclusionary practices push the church to the edge of our acceptable praxis. This terrifying practice walks us to the very border of our God-granted authority and acceptable praxis and thus has great potential to be abused. And it has. Indeed this practice has been abused many times in the past two thousand years of church history. Given the extreme social, cultural, and economic distance between these practices and our present context, it can be difficult to assess how, or even if, we should appropriate these terrifying practices. More work needs to be done for exploring how we might relate these practices to modern ecclesial life, especially for those wanting to take a centered set approach to their ecclesiology, where there seems to be apparent tension between the practice and the model itself. Luke Geraty began some of these reflections with a SVS paper in 2012 but more is needed. Luke Geraty, “Towards a Vineyard Center-Set Ecclesiology: Is Church Discipline Appropriate?,” SVS 2012. One line of inquiry that I might suggest regarding center-set Kingdom ecclesiology and church discipline may be to explore how the church discipline process may be less about boundary guarding and more about orienteering one’s position in relation to the center with the help of the ecclesial community. There are many additional considerations and questions that ought to be considered. Here are but a few: In the ancient world of the New Testament texts, church communities were social, economic, and religious networks of interdependence and severance from such support networks could have devastating consequences. Similarly, the role of honor and shame in these contexts likewise lended a pedagogical weight to this practice that frankly falls flat in our contemporary contexts. One question that needs to be asked is: Are church disciplinary practices able to accomplish the goal with which they were originally designed and intended? Jesus commands believers to treat those under the most extreme measure of church discipline “as tax collectors and gentiles,” Matt 18:17 and yet it is Jesus himself in the very same gospel where he makes this statement that he shares meals and common table fellowship with tax collectors. Matt 9:10 How should this inform our own disciplinary practices in light of how we interact with non-believers in our seeker sensitive communities? This past month, Monica Lewinsky shared a TED talk on the price of shame. In this talk, she powerfully, movingly spoke about the consequences of shame in our culture. http://www.ted.com/talks/monica_lewinsky_the_price_of_shame?utm_content=buffer5e150&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#t-388724 What makes the exclusionary practices of the church different than the destructive practice about which she spoke? How may church disciplinary practices exist such that a culture of humiliation is not created? Can discipline, even corporate discipline, exist without humiliation? Lewinsky suggested that compassion and empathy were the tools to militate against humiliation. The exhortations towards compassion and care similarly point this direction. The literary context of Matthew 18, where this process originates, is telling. As rightly noted by van de Sandt, the surrounding literary context of this passage on correction is that of humility (Matt 18:1-5), responsibility (Matt 18:6-9), individual loving care (Matt 18:10-14), forgiveness and mercy (Matt 18:21-35). Rather than a focus on expulsion, the close connection with the parable of the stray sheep (18:10-14), which immediately precedes this teaching, stresses the eagerness one should have to pursue those who have lost their way. And the list could easily go on. Church discipline is an essential function of right order within our now-not yet, eschatological communities and the lean towards redemption and forgiveness attached to this practice needs to be preeminent as we explore what this looks like in our contemporary contexts. Can this process be painful? Yes. Can it be abused? Absolutely. But Jesus promises that throughout this process, where two or three are gathered in His name, he is there among them – whether his presence be guiding this process in pursuit of repentance and redemption or suffering alongside the believer who is unfairly judged. Let us not, on one hand, go too far into an over realized eschatology as Wright has arguably done at various points on this issue, and on the other, throw out this remedial, redemptive process completely; instead let us continue to corporately discern where we, as both individuals and communities, fall short so that we may repent and pursue Jesus, our center, as a community of faith, hope, and love. Thomas Lyons SVS 2015 Draft 2