A Right Conception of Discipline
The Restorative Versus Retributive
Discipline seems all the rage these days. At least within the Church of the Nazarene (COTN). So many of our conversations online and in person inevitably come around to discipline. If we take the temperature of the COTN, I believe we would find a fever. That can be both good and bad. Our bodies go into fever to fight infections, but the fever may also be destructive and contraindicated for the body. I don’t know anyone who is happy about a fever or even thankful because that means illness. But when it comes to discipline we are experiencing so many versions of fever that I wonder if we understand what discipline should be. What is a right conception of discipline? How might we consider discipline within the Body of Christ, both catholic and particular?
The opening paragraphs of the Judicial section of the Manual: Church of the Nazarene explains what the COTN believes to be the objectives of church discipline:
The objectives of church discipline are to sustain the integrity of the church, to protect the innocent from harm, to protect the effectiveness of the witness of the church, to warn and correct the careless, to bring the guilty to salvation, to rehabilitate the guilty, to restore to effective service those who are rehabilitated, and to protect the reputation and resources of the church. (Manual p244)
I have been accused of occasional eisegesis, but as I review this text, the following stands out. Discipline is designed to protect the innocent and the reputation and resources of the church. Discipline should accomplish the following ideas; warning, correcting, salvation, rehabilitation, and restoration. When I review these words, I see a majority of them are centered in the idea of restorative justice, not retributive justice. This tells me that the point of church discipline should always be aimed at restoration and not punishment. But the leading proponents of making sure we discipline sound like they want punishment. Phrases like, “oh he’ll get his” or “we have a list of pastors we are going to get after this” give credence to the idea that people are desiring punishment rather than restoration. That seems a wrong conception of discipline.
Rather than a heart of desire for restoration of the person finding themselves under discipline, there is an appearance of schadenfreude (1. Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. 2. Malicious enjoyment derived from observing someone else’s misfortune. 3. Delight in another person’s misfortune.) I am not arguing that people are reveling in misfortune, but that some of the language used when discussing discipline often sounds like it. When done in public, I could argue that the reputation of the church could be harmed. On the flip side, many would also see that language as protecting. It is that contradiction which leads me to a few ideas why.
Before I go any deeper, I want to be clear that this is my opinion, as always. My ideas are not prescriptive and I am not sure anybody will agree with my assessment. But these ideas are based upon my interactions and observations. I imagine many will disagree with me and that is also fine. But this is one of those essays that keeps bubbling up and asking to be written. I also am not averse to discipline because it is often necessary, but is it wielded with power as punishment, or is it a loving and grace filled move toward restoration? I also want to be clear that something such as abuse or crime are not functions of church discipline because those should be direct to authorities outside of the church.
At the center of the contradiction between the assumption that discipline is punitive rather than restorative is a view of God. One view is that God acts in retributive justice and demands punishment. The other view is that God works in restorative justice and woos us for relational healing and reconciliation. If your view of God is the Punisher, then that will be your mode and view of church discipline. Wesleyan-Holiness folk are a big tent as is the COTN, so both views can exist in the same denomination. But the retributive view is not as clear in our doctrines and theology. Most of our doctrines are informed by our understanding of grace and especially prevenient grace, which is the enabling and universal grace God gives to humanity.
The view of God influences the way we see discipline, and many views of God see discipline as wrathful punishment. But with God being described as a loving parent, how do we deal with the disconnect between discipline and punishment? It could be in the way we see wrath. Is wrath the angry vengeance of God or is wrath the experience of one acting in ways contrary to the way of love? This becomes controversial only when we say God rather than a parent. I know when my parents disciplined me as a child; I felt it was wrathful only because I did not like the consequences of something I had done. They were not punishing retributively; they were disciplining with the aim of restoration. Why is it so hard to see God this way? Maybe because so much of the popular evangelical views of God are of the wrathful and retributive God. This is also the attitude of political discourse in the U.S. currently. The language of defeating and punishing opponents is on display constantly, and Christians jump into that melee on all sides.
This is another aspect of discipline I have observed. There is a sense that one side in a disagreement must win such that the other side is defeated and destroyed. There is no desire for reconciliation because reconciliation would allow the “enemy” to have a partial win. Discipline becomes a zero-sum game like a war to be won rather than an opportunity for relational healing. This aspect also contains a bit of the scapegoat. To those who desire punishment, the assumption appears to be that getting rid of the punished will usher in a perfect version of their idea of church. Unfortunately, this sounds a lot like the Pharisees and their desire for a complete and perfect day of law following in Israel.
Outside of the attitudes above, I have observed how our geographic particularity in the U.S. districts of the COTN affects the way we deal with the big tent of theology and doctrine. I have a friend who faced a church trial in a past year and survived. Most of the charges were determined by his district to be unfounded, as the narrow understanding of doctrine from the clergy who signed the formal charges showed a lack of understanding of doctrine and theology within the COTN’s Articles of Faith. Even after being told that those charges were unfounded, the clergy who signed were upset, claiming that the district which held the trial failed at their job. I feel that was an astounding claim and wonder how it does not harm the church as it showed an uncharitable and unloving attitude toward another district. Yes, that person is once again facing charges and his name was mentioned in a phrase with “he’ll get his.” How is that attitude a reflection of holiness?
What is a right conception of discipline? According to the Judicial section of the Manual, it is aimed at restoration, rehabilitation, salvation, and restoration. When the process does not contain any hint of those, there is a good chance that a wrong conception of discipline has been engaged and punishment is the aim rather than restoration or reconciliation. Even for those who see God as retributive, our example of working things out should rule and we should seek to find reconciliation throughout the process. A right conception of discipline should be restorative and any other form should lead to lament and sorrow because that means that the process failed. I also lament the attitude of punishment causing a fever in the COTN. But when that is your picture of God, then I guess punishment is what you need to feel whole.
May we be a people slow to anger, a people who rejects the language of hatred in the world, and engage in reconciling discipline rather than punishment. May we be a people with a right conception of discipline.
Church of the Nazarene Manual 2017-2021. Nazarene Publishing House, 2018.