WHensoever the Countrey Parson proceeds so farre as to call in Authority, and to do such things of legall opposition either in the presenting, or punishing of any, as the vulgar ever consters for signes of ill will; he forbears not in any wise to use the delinquent as before, in his behaviour and carriage towards him, not avoyding his company, or doing any thing of aversenesse, save in the very act of punishment: neither doth he esteem him for an enemy, but as a brother still, except some small and temporary estrangling may corroborate the punishment to a better subduing, and humbling of the delinquent; which if it happily take effect, he then comes on the faster, and makes so much the more of him, as before he alienated himselfe; doubling his regards, and shewing by all means, that the delinquents returne is to his advantage.

Most of us I would guess are put off by the title of this chapter — A minister punishing a parishioner? Doesn’t that represent the overbearing, abusive attitude of a Medieval mindset that placed clergy over and above ‘regular’ clergy?

All of our predecessors agreed, the Church and her officers are called to discipline. In my own polity (Presbyterianism) this is always done through courts consisting of ministers and representatives of the congregation, but in any structure Discipline, is part of the work of the Church’s ministry along with Word and Sacrament. Before I go further I should clarify: the Church as a voluntary organization only has authority to discipline those who have willingly submitted themselves to discipline by becoming a member of a local congregation, furthermore discipline in the church ultimately is excluding someone from membership — some examples of punishment in a Church would be not allowing someone to hold positions of leadership, requiring counselling or forbidding someone from receiving the Lord’s Supper.

There is an honesty in Herbert discussing punishment. I have seen Churches in effect punish parishioners without having the decency to admit what they were doing. Compare what Herbert calls for to how difficulties are dealt with in some modern Churches.

For Herbert if someone in the Church causes problems you are to be open and confront the sinner. In calling it discipline you obligate the Church to follow rules set down in their constitution and give the offender due rights to explain and defend themselves. Herbert says afterwards you are not to treat the person differently than before, the goal of discipline is to restore a brother or sister. The relationship should continue as before, welcoming the restored parishioner back into the community.

What I often see in Churches today is no one dares use the term discipline lest we seem authoritarian or mean. However pastors still deal with those who cause trouble or live in notorious sin. Without facing with the issues formally people are denied the right to defend themselves, it also allows people to be punished without a clear ‘charge’ but only a personal dislike. The tendency in the modern form of ‘discipline’ is to substitute gossip and secret discussions for the open meetings true discipline would require. Instead of pronouncing a censor on sin, many contemporary Churches and Pastors punish (without having the courage to call it that) in the very way Herbert says not to — by avoiding, excluding and ignoring a brother or sister.

It seems much more Biblical to deal with problems openly and honestly in an effort to restore a member to full Church membership.

(Image: Church in the storm by Slack12)