Simple answer? Yes, but not to the extent that our Jehovah’s Witness friends do or other similar groups. The process of discipline in the ecclesia is found at Matthew 18:15-18. In volume 6 of the Studies in the Scriptures series, The New Creation. On page 289, there is a treatise on these verses. We present it below in it’s entirety:
DISCIPLINE IN THE ECCLESIA.
—Matt. 18:15-18.—
The administration of discipline is not the function of the elders only, but of the entire Church. 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 persist 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 Church’s 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 God’s: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). Should the wrong-doer repent at any step in this proceeding, it should be a cause of thanksgiving and rejoicing to all who possess the Lord’s 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 “as a heathen man and a publican”—Matt. 18:17.
At no time in these proceedings are the faults or failings of the offender to be made public property—scandalizing him and the Church, and the Lord, the Head of the Church. Nor is he to be harshly spoken of even after the separation; just as we are not to berate, or rail against, heathen men and publicans, but are to “speak evil of no man” and to “do good unto all men” (Titus 3:2; Gal. 6:10). Love is the quality which insists on the strictest obedience to these last two requirements to “all men”: how much more will love insist that a “brother,” a fellow-member in the Ecclesia, the body of Christ, shall not only not be injured by false or garbled statements, but that, additionally, his weaknesses or blunders or sins be carefully covered, not from the unsympathetic world only, but also from “the household of faith” and from even the Church, until the final step of “telling it to the Church” should be found absolutely necessary. At every step the spirit of love will hope that the wrong-doer is laboring under some misapprehensions, and will be praying for wisdom and grace to turn a sinner from the error of his way and thus (possibly) to save a soul from death—Jas. 5:20.
Oh, that the holy Spirit, the spirit of love, might dwell in every member of the Ecclesia so richly that it would give pain to hear a defamatory tale about any one, and especially about a fellow-member! This would at once eliminate one half the friction, or more. Nor would the following of the above procedure, outlined by our Lord, lead to frequent church trials: rather, while removing the ground for animosities, it would inculcate a respect for the judgment of the Church as being the judgment of the Lord, and the voice of the Church would be heard and obeyed accordingly. Furthermore, with order and love thus prevailing we may be sure that each would seek as far as possible to “mind his own business” and not attempt to reprove his brother or correct him, or bring the matter before a committee or the Church, unless the matter were one of some importance as concerned himself or the Church or the Truth.
Unquestionably, the majority of the Church troubles (and society and family troubles also) spring not from a desire to wrong, or even from a wrong unintentionally committed, but from misunderstandings and, at least, partial misinterpretations of intentions or motives. The tongue is the general mischief-maker; hence it is part of the spirit of a sound mind to set a guard upon the lips as well as upon the heart, from which proceed the ungenerous sentiments that, the lips expressing, set fire to evil passions and often injure many. The New Creation, the Church, has strict instructions from their Lord and Head on this important subject. His spirit of love is to fill them as they go alone, privately, to the injuring person without previous conference or talking with anyone. They go not to make him (or her) ashamed of his conduct, nor to berate him or otherwise punish, but to secure a cessation of the wrong and, if possible, some recompense for injury already received. Telling others of the wrong, first or afterward, is unkind, unloving, contrary to the Word and Spirit of our Head. Not even to ask advice should the matter be told: we have the Lord’s advice and should follow it. If the case be a peculiar one, the wisest of the elders should be asked for advice along the lines of a hypothetical case, so as not to disclose the real trouble and wrong-doer.
Unless the trouble is serious, the matter ought to stop with the personal appeal to the erring one, whether he hears or forbears to hear—to yield. But if the second step be deemed necessary, no explanation of the trouble should be made to those asked to confer until they gather in the presence of the accuser and the accused. Thus slanderous “talk” will be avoided and the committee of brethren will come to the case unbiased and be the better able to counsel both parties wisely; for the trouble may be on both sides or, possibly, wholly on the side of the accuser. At all events, the accused will be favorably impressed by such fair treatment and will be much more likely to yield to such counselors if his course seems to them also to be wrong. But whether the one deemed by the committee to be in error shall yield or not, the whole matter is still strictly private, and not a mention of it should be made to anyone until, if thought sufficiently important, it is brought before the Church, and passed upon finally. Then for the first time it is common property to the saints only, and in proportion as they are saints they will desire to say no more than necessary to anyone respecting the weaknesses or sins of anybody.
In carrying out the findings of the Church court, the matter rests with each individual; hence, each must discern the justice of the decision for himself. The penalty of withdrawal of fellowship is designed to be a correction in righteousness, and is of the Lord’s prescribing. It is to serve as a protection to the Church, to separate those who walk disorderly, not after the spirit of love. It is not to be esteemed a perpetual separation, but merely until the reproved one shall recognize and acknowledge his wrong and to the extent of his ability make amends.