Church Discipline- especially ex-communication

[Scott1]

We live in a generation where church discipline, both the whole of government process over Christ's Church and over church judicial process in particular is rare.

Biblically, what are the ordinary requirements before and after excommunication?

Specifically, biblically,

1) At what point does the process "go public" before the church as a whole?

2) When a person is declared "as if" a nonbeliever and excommunicated, ought we continue to fellowship with that person?

3) How practically, might a person be "reclaimed" after ex-communication?

 

[Wannabee]

Just a couple of notes - not comprehensive.
Going public should be done after all pains have been taken to show the unrepentant member their sin, lovingly attempting to point them to Christ and expose the ramifications of the path they have chosen. This may vary somewhat according to the person and the nature of their sin. When it becomes apparent to the pastor/s that the person is not willing to repent then it should be brought before the church. The purpose is two-fold, to restore the sinner and to protect the purity, testimony and integrity the body of Christ.
My understanding of fellowship necessitates salvation (1 John 1:3). Therefore, if one is excommunicated then they cannot fellowship.
Furthermore, we are not even to eat with those who are excommunicated, but to pursue restoration (1 Cor 5:11). In light of the teaching of 1 Cor 5 it becomes apparent that they are avoided even more than unbelievers.
Though we often go to Matthew 18 for church discipline, we might be better served to study Gal 6 and Ephesians 4-5, as well as 1 Cor 5, as well as other select passages that focus on winning your brother. The goal is restoration, or "reclamation." Reclamation may be delicate. The person's open and clear repentance should be observed and observable. Practically, it would seem best to have their testimony of repentance before the church; or perhaps they could write it out for distribution. Admittedly, I can't recall verses for such a position, but merely submit it as pragmatic.

 

[Leslie]

It's not scripture but makes sense to me: private sins are dealt with privately; public sins are dealt with publicly; at least that's the policy of the church we affiliate with. The question is when the private spills over to the public. Is it at the time of wholesale rumors or when it's upfront public?

 

[Wannabee]

If the person will repent privately, that's fine. But if they refuse then it must be brought to the public. And, the rumors that surface and run course when there is unrepentant private sin are often worse than the offense. It's better to it in the open so that the truth can be known, and the church can conspire to pursue repentance and restoration of their rebellious brother (or goat...).

 

[Scott1]

Here are a few biblical principles from readings (these are only thoughts, not firm convictions at this point):

1) Ex-communication, being the final step of last resort, must in some sense be public to the church

2) Once a person is ex-communicated, that person should not be received to participate in the church life of any Christian communion, unless and until repentance is forthcoming and recognized by church authority

3) Unnecessary contact with the person should be avoided

4)Necessary contacts such as family and business are excepted

5) All contact needs to be tempered by the Christian knowing the person is to be treated as an unbeliever, is in open rebellion against Christ and the authority He has given His church, and that the person's sin is causing great harm to themselves and other people

6) Ex-communication is only for extreme cases of sustained impenitence toward open, known, scandalous sin that has been dealt with in biblical steps before that time

7) It is never for private, petty or unclear sin and is always for an insolent, impenitent attitude that continues, not for the actual sin itself.

8) Christians may continue to pray privately for the salvation and/or repentance of the person

9) Christians may privately "evangelize" the person as part of accidental and necessary contacts, and for other contacts specifically limited to that purpose

10) The ex-communicated person may approach church authority in repentance at any time with the possibility of restoration of full fellowship and we may pray, privately, toward that end.

 

[Wannabee]

A few questions:
4) Obviously business contact may be unavoidable. What is the biblical basis of family contact being accepted? I've pondered this and never been settled.
7) What is meant by "private"?
8) Perhaps "can and are encouraged to pray..."

Number 10 seems to address number 8

I would consider stressing the impossibility of fellowship. It's said here, but the precious gift of the fellowship of believers with one another in/and Christ must be guarded. The ex-communicated is professed to be an unbeliever, rendering fellowship impossible. This carries a certain grieving over the unrepentant in the hearts of believers as they recognize the implications involved and weep for their lost loved one.

 

[Herald]

I would consider stressing the impossibility of fellowship. It's said here, but the precious gift of the fellowship of believers with one another in/and Christ must be guarded. The ex-communicated is professed to be an unbeliever, rendering fellowship impossible. This carries a certain grieving over the unrepentant in the hearts of believers as they recognize the implications involved and weep for their lost loved one.

I tend to agree. There is a difference between a relationship with an unbeliever and a church member who has been ex-communicated. To continue with a buddy-buddy relationship undermines the purpose of church discipline. There may be occasions (such as a business relationship) that may cause interaction, but that doesn't mean all is chummy. Being put out of the visible church has a cost.

 

[satz]

Sorry if this is an elementary question, but is ex-communication the same as the "putting out" that is described in 1 Corinthians 5?

 

[Herald]

Sorry if this is an elementary question, but is ex-communication the same as the "putting out" that is described in 1 Corinthians 5?

Yes.

 

[Tim]

For those who know that their church would practice this sort of thing (assuming that all that was written in this thread is Biblically correct):

Don't you feel secure, safe, loved, that your church would be willing to do all of this for you? May we all have the benefit of loving discipline, if ever needed.

 

[Wannabee]

Many fail to recognize that church discipline is a privilege of membership (whether one subscribes to "official" membership or not). It is a wonderful blessing through which God has provided a clear means by which to pursue purity in the church and repentance in a sinning brother. Both are glorious. But without biblical discipline the church cannot thrive in the purity of Christ. And we must constantly remind ourselves that it's about restoration for the glory of God.

 

[Scott1]

A few questions:
4) Obviously business contact may be unavoidable. What is the biblical basis of family contact being accepted? I've pondered this and never been settled.

Reading (see below) may be helpful

7) What is meant by "private"?

In the sense of being a sin does not directly affect another person, only God (e.g. imagining stealing in one's mind only). It might also be where two people privately resolve a fault. Remember, ex-communication is only for open, scandalous sin that God causes to become known to Church authority.

8) Perhaps "can and are encouraged to pray..."

Originally, I too thought more like a duty to do so, but on reflection, after some reading, perhaps "may" better reflects the point of process and purpose.

Number 10 seems to address number 8

10) keeps the door open for restoration to full fellowship and even membership again if repentance (confess, forsake, restitution/reconciliation) is initiated by the person and adjudged by church authority

I would consider stressing the impossibility of fellowship. It's said here, but the precious gift of the fellowship of believers with one another in/and Christ must be guarded. The ex-communicated is professed to be an unbeliever, rendering fellowship impossible. This carries a certain grieving over the unrepentant in the hearts of believers as they recognize the implications involved and weep for their lost loved one.

Here is one reading from James Durham that may be helpful.

From an earlier thread, from Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990).James Durham

This might be helpful in understanding a historical biblical view of this:
(emphasis added)

What Further Duty Is Required Of Private Professors Towards Heretics That Are Cut Off. If it is asked ‘What duty further is called for from private persons towards a person cut off?’

ANSWER. I suppose these things are called for:
1. Abstinence from unnecessary civil fellowship, as, not to frequent their company, to visit them, to dine or sup with them, or to have them dining or supping with us, or to use such familiarity in such things, as [ordinarily is] with others, or possibly has been with them. So it is [in] 1 Cor. 5, and it is no less the people’s duty to carry so, that it may be a mean for their edification, than proportionally it is the minister’s duty to instruct, pass sentence, etc.
2. There would be an abstinence from Christian fellowship, that is, we would not pray with them, read or confer of spiritual purposes (purposely at least), nor do any such thing that belongs to Christian communion: that is, to reject him in that sense from Christian fellowship, and to account him as an heathen man or publican. In this respect, we cannot walk with an excommunicate man, as we may walk with other Christians. And in the first respect, we cannot walk with them, as we may walk with other heathens, that, it may be, are guilty of as gross sins upon the matter. For the Word of the Lord, puts this difference expressly between them and these who are simply heathens (1 Cor. 5).
3. Yet even then prayer may be made for them. For excommunication is no evidence that a person has sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, or that their sin is a sin unto death. And their necessities, if they are in want, may and should be supplied, because they are men, and it is natural to supply such. They may be helped also against unjust violence, or from any personal hazard, if they fall in it. And as occasion offers, folks may give a weighty serious word of admonition unto them, and such like. Because by such means, the end of the sentence and its weight are furthered, and not weakened.
4. These that are in natural relations, ought to walk in the duties of them, as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, magistrates and subjects, etc., for what nature binds, the church does not loose.
5. Men may follow civil business, as paying or exacting payment of debts, buying or selling, and may walk in such things as are requisite for humane fellowship and society; because, though church censures are to humble and shame men, by bearing in on them their sinfulness, yet it is not to undo them, and simply to take away a being from them.
6. Yet all these things would be done with them in such a manner, as (1.), the persons may show their indignation at their way, even when they express tenderness to their persons. (2.) It would be done in a different manner from what [ordinarily is] with others not under such a sentence, that so they may bear out their respect to the sentence, even when they show respect to them. Therefore, there would not be such frequency in meddling with such persons, nor would it be with familiarity or many words, and long discourses to other purposes, nor with laughing, and with such cheerfulness, intimacy or complacency, as is used with others. But, in a word, the business would be done, and other things abstained from. (3.) When what is necessary is past, except it is on necessity, folks would not eat or drink with them at the time of doing their business, or after the closing of the same; because that does not necessarily belong to them as men, and by so doing, the due distance would not be kept. And this is the great practical [point], so to carry to them as the weight of the sentence is not lessened, nor they prejudged of what otherways is necessary to their being, but that so every opportunity may be taken, whereby their edification may be advanced.