Church "Enforcement" Revisited

Clearing some things up

In response to my recent article on how churches are to enforce the doctrines they teach, I received some pushback on the idea of “enforcement.” I admit, the term can sound heavy-handed. But, it doesn’t necessarily have to be. So, we have to be careful to clarify what is and is not being said.

I am not advocating elders hand their members a list of commandments and periodically test to see if those are being kept. I am not advocating a one strike and you’re out policy.

I’m just advocating for the practice of shepherding. Know your people, and know if they are living out what is being taught from the pulpit. To continue the example from last time, if the preacher preaches a series on marriage, and through time spent together the elders know one member is very domineering toward his wife, and another wife “wears the pants in her family,” it is their job to point out to these members the ways their lives are not consistent with God’s Word.

This is what I meant by pointing to the difference between the “teaching them all I commanded” we practice and the “teaching them to observe all I commanded” Jesus actually said in Matthew 28:18-20.

“Teaching them all I commanded” is the equivalent of telling my kids to clean their room and hoping it ends up clean. “Teaching them to observe all I commanded” is telling them to clean their room, and then making sure it actually ends up clean.

For a more basic example, consider attendance. You can preach that people need to attend and be involved. But the irony is, many times those sermons are preached when the people who most need to hear them aren’t in attendance. And whether they hear the message or not, a lot of people are going to continue to attend only when they feel like it.

Should the elders make a phone call and tell people “we miss you, hope you come back?” Or should they visit, let the members know they are missed when they aren’t around, but also let them know they are also expected to attend, and then follow up should attendance not increase?

Are we requesting their attendance, or are we letting them know they are required to attend to be members?

Our individualism-addled brains are wired to see this as authoritarian. But this is simply how authority works. If a member is insistent on continuing in sin, and the elder is going to have to answer to God for why they let the member continue in sin, then the elder has authority delegated from God to confront that sin.

The absence of this kind of authority is what has made our congregations so weak. People can get away with almost whatever they want, and they know it. We act as though the church is privileged to have their attendance rather than letting them know they are the ones who are privileged to belong to the church, and that privilege is not to be taken for granted. We are not desperate to have them.

And though they are responsible for themselves, their leaders are also responsible for them. Sheep rise or fall to the level to which what their leaders call them. Read through Timothy and Titus a few times and see how much responsibility was placed on the shoulders of those men to put everyone in position to either succeed or be confronted.

Most importantly, the ability to enforce doctrinal truths is protective both to the member and to the family. The member is protected by not being allowed to stray. The family is protected by not being dragged down by lazy, worldly-minded members.

If I’m not walking in the light, I want truth to be enforced on me. I want to know if I’m not meeting what God and His church expect of me from the Scriptures. All good sheep should want that, shouldn’t they?