How Do Churches Enforce Their Teaching?

What if they say "no?"

For years I have lamented what I call “choose your own adventure Christianity.”

This is the all but universally used format in which each member is left to voluntarily decide their level of commitment to the work of the church and adherence to her teachings.

We can stand up week in and week out and proclaim “Thus says the Lord,” but then what? What if they don’t want to do it? What if they don’t get it?

As I explore the idea that the church’s doctrine is meant to result in a Christian culture by governing how Christians are to live their lives, how will it happen?

When we share the Biblical teaching on husbands and wives, for example, what happens if a feminist wife or a chauvinist husband just doesn’t want to change? What happens when a recently converted couple doesn’t quite understand what shifts are required of them? Do we just hope they pick it up by extended osmosis over the years?

Outside of “public sin” and, in some cases, the forsaking of the assembling (Hebrews 10:25), there is virtually no enforcement of what is taught.

Even preaching on greater commitment is little more than a suggestion or a request. If there is no enforcement arm behind the message, it is still up to the individual member to “choose their own adventure.”

Is this how it has to be?

Did God design the church to rely on a hope that members will voluntarily commit themselves?

Studying the text, I believe the answer is a resounding no. This is not how it has to be, or even how it was supposed to be.

Request or Requirement?

We utilize the church’s teaching and preaching as a request at best and a suggestion at worst. “Here’s what the Bible says about _____. Here’s why it would bless you if you do it. Anyway, we hope you’ll apply it and we’ll see you next week!”

That is not the system the New Testament gave us. Instead of requesting members to act a certain way, church leaders are to require these things of them.

Start with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus did not say “teaching them all that I have commanded you.” Rather, He said “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (emp. added). The former is about helping people understand what He commanded, which is what we do today. The latter is about making sure they actually do it, which is decidedly do not do today. But that’s the one He actually commanded.

To paraphrase, the church isn’t just supposed to teach people the truth—we’re supposed to make sure they live it, too.

This is what leadership is for. Shepherds aren’t just there to fetch straying sheep. The majority of their work is in using their rods to keep the flock on the right path, grazing on the healthy truth of the Word.

Titus 2:15 drives this point home: “These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”

Much of the preceding discussion in Titus 2 was made up of lifestyle teachings—how older and younger men are to carry themselves, how older women should teach the younger women to be good wives and mothers who keep the home, how bondslaves are to serve their masters, etc.

He didn’t just say “speak” these things. He added “exhort,” which means to urge them to do it. He then tacked on “reprove,” which means to correct them if they don’t do it. And for good measure he said “Let no one disregard you.”

We preach truth and hope people follow it. Titus was to preach truth, demand people follow it, correct them if they didn’t, and stay on them until they did. That sounds like enforcement to me.

Notice these are similar words to those given to Timothy. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures were given for reproving, rebuking, and exhorting—again, enforcement. He immediately follows that (4:1-4) with a command to preach the Word in order to accomplish the reproving, rebuking, and exhorting.

He even warns Timothy people won’t endure it. We think that means people are going to want to hear feel good sermons all the time. That can be true.

But it also pretty clearly means they aren’t going to want to be corrected for their failure to obey the Word. People aren’t going to endure it when doctrine is enforced and they are expected to obey. So we don’t expect them to obey, we just hope they do. We request it rather than require it.

We weren’t given preachers and elders for putting on Sunday events or keeping a building open, though. We were given these roles so teaching and enforcement of the teaching could take place.

What would enforcement look like, then?

Close contact disciple making.

This is how the disciple-making push of the last few years actually takes shape. In Church Reset I argued the goal of disciple-making should be to have people join in the ministry of the church.

While I still think that’s true, it’s only part of the equation. Disciple-making should also teach people how to be like Jesus in their particular situations in life, just as Titus and Timothy were called to do. “Here’s how to be an older man, an older woman, a younger man, a younger woman. Here’s how to be a wife. Here’s how to take care of your own as a man. Here’s what widows are to do. Here’s what the rich should do. Here’s what the poor should do.”

If they won’t do it, “let no one disregard you.” The leaders are to stay on people to push for obedience. Don’t just teach. Teach them to observe. It’s relationship-based instruction, not all that unlike parenting. (Maybe that’s why parenting skills are an elder qualification.)

I realize this is a radical shift from what we know as the church. Many will find this kind of exercise of authority incredibly hard to stomach. The path from here to there is a long and winding one, I admit.

But I’ll leave you with two questions:

How is our current system of non-enforcement working out for us?

Is this not what the Bible tells us to do?

Note: I wrote a follow-up to answer responses here