I received a question concerning church discipline and withdrawal. Previously I wrote that when we commence church discipline, we must be prepared to face the ultimate consequence which is excommunication. If there is no repentance, the consistory must proceed to final censure. Once started, the process cannot be aborted except by repentance of sin and amendment of life.

A reader wrote me that it happens when church discipline is applied the person being disciplined withdraws from the church. The question is: does this withdrawal affect the process of discipline? Should the consistory then acquiesce in the matter, cease discipline, and inform the congregation of the new situation? Or should the consistory be so bold as to continue the steps of discipline?

This is not (yet) about how the consistory makes the announcement. That is a matter for a different article. The question is now: does withdrawal as a member really end the process of church discipline?

Different Historical Perspectives⤒🔗

It should be made clear that through the ages the churches have followed different practices. I mention this as a weak form of self-defence. Misery loves company, so if I take an erroneous route it is a route that others have taken before me. Small comfort, but a comfort nonetheless.

The letter-writer refers to the Dutch (Regional?) Synod of 1841 which stated that the old Synod of Dort (1618-1619) recognizes only excommunication as the one way to terminate membership and does not mention withdrawal. Actually the point is made that our Church Order nowhere even uses the word "withdrawal." The writer concludes that withdrawal during the process of excommunication is simply an attempt to neutralize the process of discipline.

I tend to agree with this assessment. Sometimes a withdrawal is used as an easy way to end the process of discipline. After all, you cannot discipline a non-member can you? Before a consistory can apply the final step of church discipline, this step is pre-empted by the member's withdrawal. I have found the step of withdrawal in this situation to be mostly one of convenience.

In the time of my active ministry I have only once experienced it that someone was properly readmitted to the church with the use of the adopted Form. Most colleagues have never had to use this Form. Is this because withdrawal has become the way to leave the church rather than to wait for the process of church discipline to come to its proper conclusion? Perhaps we must scuttle the Form for Readmission as one that has ceased to function. I am afraid that withdrawal has become the back door through which we easily slip out of the church.

Sign of the Times?←⤒🔗

Is it a sign of the times that people rather withdraw than be excommunicated? Is withdrawal something that is done more readily nowadays than in days past? I will quote from the standard book of the late Prof. Dr. H. Bouwman (Professor of Church Polity in Kampen).

In Volume 2 of his opus he writes,

In our days as a rule worldly people withdraw from the church because the church through its discipline is severely pressing them. Many unwilling and unrepentant (members) would rather seek refuge in all kinds of sects than humble themselves before the office bearers of the church who admonish them in the name of Christ against their sins. Alas, the heart of man is so haughty and conniving. It is so difficult to be the least, humbly to confess sins and break with them.Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, Volume 2, Dr. H. Bouwman, 2nd edition, Kok, Kampen, p. 655

The "days" about which Bouwman is writing are the 1920s-1930s. It would appear that in our time there is nothing new under the sun in this respect. Withdrawal from the church is still used as an easy way out.

Continuation of Discipline?←⤒🔗

Still, it is difficult to continue with church discipline in the case of withdrawal. I understand this fully. How can you principally and practically exercise church discipline over those who are no longer members?

I think that a consistory has to look carefully at each situation. If the withdrawal is clearly a means of escape, the elders should inform the one who has withdrawn that the withdrawal is unacceptable and that church discipline will continue.

After all, church discipline is not given to pester people but to show Christ's love to unrepentant sinners. The hope and prayer is that a member will repent and be reconciled to God and his church. If withdrawal is an automatic way out, the sinner does not benefit when church discipline is suddenly stopped.

All this is not just a matter of form. The proper exercising of church discipline is a mark of the true church of Christ. Members may sometimes seek to escape discipline by withdrawal, but this does not undo the consistory's responsibility.

My letter-writer expresses the hope that "one day our churches will revisit this matter and draw the scriptural 'conclusion' on this important matter." Perhaps the first step now is to discuss the matter of withdrawal and how to deal with it properly.