There is a chapter in The New Creation (1904) (Studies in the Scriptures
Vol. 6) entitled Order and Discipline in the New Creation (Study VI, pp.273 - 347) which can be read in full here. The information below comes from that chapter, particularly the section Discipline in the Ecclesia (pp.289-293).
FFGhost : Was there an "official" procedure that was to be followed?
If one appears to be in error or
in sin, his supposed wrong should be pointed out to the erring one only by the one he has injured, or by
the member first discovering the
wrong. If the reproved one
fails to clear himself, and continues
in the error or sin, then two or three brethren without
previous prejudice should be
asked to hear the matter and advise
the disputants. (Elders they may or may not be, but their eldership would add no force or authority in
the case except as their
judgment might be the riper and
their influence the more potent.)
If this committee decide unanimously with either party, the other should acquiesce and the matter be
wholly at an end--correction,
or restitution, so far as possible, being promptly made. If either of the original disputants still
persists in the wrong course,
the one who made the original charge or one of those called in committee or, preferably, all of
these together, may then (but
not sooner) exercise their privilege of bringing the matter before the Ecclesia, the body, the Church. Thus it is evident
that the Elders were in no
sense to be judges of the members--hearing and judgment
were left to the local body, or Church. The two preliminary
steps (above mentioned) having been taken, the facts being certified to the elders, it would be their duty to call a general meeting of the Ecclesia, or consecrated body, as a court--to
hear the case in all of its
particulars, and in the name and reverence of its Head to render a decision. And the matter should be so clear, and the
condemned should have such generous treatment, that the decision would be a unanimous one, or nearly
so. Thus the peace and oneness
of the body (the Ecclesia) would be preserved. Repentance even up to the moment of the
Churchʹs condemnation is possible. Nay, to secure repentance and reform is the very object of every step of these proceedings--to
reclaim the transgressor; his punishment not at all the object. Punishment is not
ours but Godʹs: ʺVengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the
Lord.ʺ (`Rom. 12:19`) Should the wrongdoer repent at any step in this proceeding, it should be a cause of thanksgiving and rejoicing to all who possess the Lordʹs
Spirit, and no others are members of his body. `Rom. 8:9` Indeed, even if the transgressor refuse
to hear (obey) the decision of
the entire Church, no punishment is to be inflicted or even attempted. What then? Merely the Church is to withdraw from him its fellowship and any and all
signs or manifestations of brotherhood.
Thenceforth the offender is to be treated ʺas a heathen
man and a publican.ʺ `Matt.
18:17`
FFGhost : Who made the final determination?
Thus it is evident
that the Elders were in no
sense to be judges of the members--hearing and judgment
were left to the local body, or Church.
FFGhost : What happened if the person was found "guilty"? The New Creation
book mentions "withdrawing fellowship", but what did that mean in
practice? Everyone, including family? Did "fellowship" mean within the
walls of the meeting place, or outside it as well?
There was a distinction between those who commit a sin that incurs death (1 John 5:16) and other sins. In the case of the "sin that incurs death" :
We are not to judge
of any by what is in their
hearts, for we cannot read their hearts; but if they commit wilful sin unto death it will surely become manifest outwardly--by their lips, if they are
doctrinal transgressions, denying
the precious blood of atonement;
or by their immoralities, if they have turned to walk after the flesh, ʺlike the sow that is washed, to her wallowing in the mire.ʺ It is respecting such as these, referred to in `Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31`, that the Apostle warns us to have no dealings whatever--not to eat with them, not to receive them into our houses, and not to bid them Godspeed (`2 John 9-11`); because those who
would affiliate with them or bid them Godspeed would be accounted as taking their places as enemies of God, and as partaking
of the evil deeds or evil doctrines,
as the case might be.
In the case of other sins :
He should not be passed by on the street unnoticed by the brethren, but be
treated courteously. The exclusion
should be merely from the
privileges of the assembly and from
any special brotherly associations,
etc., peculiar to the faithful. This
is implied also in our Lordʹs
words, ʺLet him be unto thee as
an heathen man and a publican.ʺ Our Lord did not mean that we should do injury to a heathen man or a publican, nor treat either in any manner unkindly; but merely that we
should not fellowship such as brethren,
nor seek their confidences, nor
as New Creatures give them
ours. The household of faith is
to be cemented and bound together
with mutual love and sympathy,
and expressions of these in
various ways. It is from the lack of these privileges and blessings that the excluded brother is caused to suffer, until he feels that he must
reform his ways and return to
the family gathering. There is a suggestion
in this respect to warmth, to
cordiality, to true brotherliness,
that should prevail amongst
those who are members of the
Lordʹs body.
FFGhost : What was the procedure for one found guilty to be "restored"?
It is not within the
power of the Church to exclude
permanently. The brother who,
having offended either a brother
member or the whole Church body, returns again and
says, ʺI repent of my wrong
course, and promise my best endeavors
to do right in the future,ʺ or
the equivalent of this, is to be forgiven--
fully, freely--as heartily as
we hope the Lord will forgive the
trespasses of all.
