The Westminster Confession may be roughly divided into three sections. The first 8 chapters deal with God and with His objective works of creation, providence, and redemption. Chapters 9–19 contain a rich description of how God applies the redemption purchased by Christ subjectively to the believer. Chapters 20–31 are mainly occupied with the doctrine of the Church. (Chapter 23, “Of the Civil Magistrate,” is an exception, but even that chapter discusses the relation of the magistrate to the Church.) The two final chapters deal with eschatology, the doctrine of the “last things.”

The present chapter, then, is part of the Confession’s teaching on the Church and treats the important subject of church discipline. It needs to be interpreted in the light of two other documents of the Assembly, The Form of Presbyterian Church Government (FCG), and The Directory for Church Government (DCG). (For the latter, see Pressing Toward the Mark, ed. by Charles Dennison and Richard Gamble, pp. 83-98.)

The first paragraph of chapter 30 makes the point that Christ has appointed a government in His Church, and that, according to that appointment, the responsibility for church discipline is committed to “church officers.” Here the Confession articulates the regulative principle for church government, the conviction that the organization of the church is not left to human wisdom, but that Christ has given directions for the permanent form of church government in His Word. The preface to the FCG quotes from Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 28:18, and Ephesians 1:19-23 and 4:7-11 to make this point. Reformed Presbyterians traditionally pray for the Lord’s blessing upon official church actions “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Zion’s only King and Head,” remembering the Covenanters’ long struggle to defend Christ’s authority in the church against usurpation by civil rulers.

In the second paragraph, the Confession gives the Reformed view of the meaning of the keys of the kingdom, which were spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 16:19. The Roman Catholic Church interpreted Jesus’ words as a grant of supreme authority to Peter and to his successors in the papacy, an authority to grant or withhold salvation. The Reformed churches held that there was no provision in the New Testament for successors to the apostles, but that the “power of the keys” was exercised by the original apostles when they inscribed their witness in the New Testament, and thereby gave instructions for the qualifications and duties of church officers.

Those officers, called teaching and ruling elders, have a limited declarative and ministerial power. They use the power of the keys by preaching and teaching the Word of God, and by admitting persons to the fellowship of the church, or, if necessary, excluding others from the fellowship. Since only God knows the heart, and only God can forgive sins (1 Sam. 16:7; Mark 2:5-12), the declarations of ministers and elders are not the final word.

What the Assembly meant can be seen in “The Directory for Church Censures,” which is part of the DCG. The formula for excommunication included these words: “I pronounce and declare thee excommunicated, and shut out from the communion of the faithful.” Later, when such a person was brought to repentance, there was a statement for absolution: “I pronounce and declare thee absolved from the sentence of excommunication … and do receive thee to the ordinances of Christ, that thou mayest be partaker of all his benefits, to thy eternal salvation.” This pronouncement was accompanied by prayer “for assurance of mercy and forgiveness to this penitent.”

The minister made no direct statement about the damnation or salvation of the sinner. The power of the keys had to do with the relation of the person to the visible church. His ultimate spiritual state was left with God, the searcher of hearts.

The third paragraph of the chapter deals with the multiple purposes of church discipline. It is, first, for the restoration of the offender, that he or she may be brought to repentance. Second, it is for the good of other church members, that they may be deterred from sinning. If the infection of sin were to spread, the whole church might fall under God’s fatherly displeasure and chastening.

Finally, faithful church discipline is for the honor of Christ and the gospel. Christians bear the name of their Savior, and their disobedience reflects unfavorably upon Him. When the church tolerates open and obstinate sin, its witness to the saving power of the gospel is gravely compromised.

The Confession does not spell out in detail the kind of offenses for which church discipline should be applied. This section does speak of “notorious and obstinate offenders,” indicating that church discipline is especially needed when sins are public, and when private and personal admonition brings no response.

The DCG gives a more detailed treatment of this subject that follows quite closely chapter 20, section 4, of the Confession. According to the DCG, church discipline is for three kinds of offenses: errors that “subvert the faith…or overthrow the power of godliness”; “practices which cause the name of God to be blasphemed, and cannot stand with the power of godliness”; and practices that “subvert that order, unity and peace, which Christ hath established in his church.”

The DCG allowed for some disagreement on points of doctrine, and for “sins of infirmity” in Christians, which do not call for public discipline. It also allowed for conscientious dissent from some outward regulations of worship and church government.

Most of the members of the Westminster Assembly had suffered at the hands of the bishops for their consciences, so they were inclined to be charitable to others who had problems of conscience. Church discipline was not to be a weapon with which to enforce outward conformity in matters that were not essential to the Christian faith.

The final paragraph describes three steps of church discipline. First comes admonition, then temporary exclusion from participation in the Lord’s supper, and finally, excommunication. Even excommunication was not necessarily permanent, for, when a sinner repented, he or she was readmitted to the church. Unlike suspension, however, excommunication was not for a stated time.

The DCG gives interesting information about the kind of admonition that should be given: “As there shall be cause, several public admonitions shall be given to the offender (if he appears) and prayers made for him… . In the admonitions, let the fact be charged upon the offender, with the clear evidence of his guilt thereof; then let the nature of his sin, the particular aggravations of it, the punishments and curses threatened against it, the danger of impenitency, especially after such means used, the woeful condition of them cast out from the favor of God and communion of the saints, the great mercy of God in Christ to the penitent, how ready and willing Christ is to forgive, and the church to accept him upon his serious repentance. Let these, or the like particulars, be urged upon him out of some suitable places of the holy scriptures.”

When we read this chapter, and the elaboration of it found in the DCG, we may well be concerned that our churches today do not often carry out this kind of thorough, earnest church discipline. No doubt there were some circumstances in the 17th Century that were different from ours. The Assembly contemplated an inclusive, established church, in which all members of the nation would normally be members of the national church and entitled to participate in its ordinances. That would mean that many in the visible church would be unconverted. (Samuel Rutherford said of the members of the Church of Scotland in that time period, that not one in forty was truly converted.) Hence there would be a need for frequent and severe discipline. In our churches today, when church membership is, in a sense, voluntary, there is hopefully a greater emphasis on the need for conversion for those who become members. So church discipline in the sense of exclusion from fellowship is not so frequently necessary.

Having said that, this chapter forces us to examine ourselves as to the seriousness of our concern for those who have fallen into sin and do not repent; our care for protecting others against temptation; our zeal for the honor of Christ and the gospel. We need to hear and respond to the warnings against a false tolerance that we read in 1 Corinthians 5 and in Christ’s message to the church of Thyatira (Rev. 2:18-29).

Wayne Spear is professor of systematic theology at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh, Pa. He is a ruling elder of the North Hills (Pittsburgh, Pa.) RPC.