Disciplining a non member

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's efl? Also are there any jobs in the middle east that's where I want to be. What credentials do I need? Also may I have your contact information?
 
The OPC the Book of Church Order states, "Ecclesiastical discipline is the exercise of that authority which the Lord Jesus Christ has committed to the visible church for the preservation of its purity, peace, and good order," and, "All members of the church, both communicants and those who are members by virtue of baptism only, are under the care of the church, and subject to ecclesiastical discipline" (italics added). I know you are not OPC, but I think the OPC BCO is right. If this man is not a member of the visible church, he cannot be disciplined by a body of which he is not a member. He can be rebuked, admonished, exhorted, even evangelized, etc., but he cannot come under ecclesiastical discipline because he is not a member of the ecclesia, his profession of faith notwithstanding.
I agree with you. I would also add as an elder with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church that this person needs to be pulled to the side and have a discussion of the brevity of his sin. I would even say to that while he does not fall under ecclesiastical discipline. He needs to be forbidden from communion.
 
Grant, I have a few thoughts:

First, church discipline is not limited to exclusion from the Supper, and usually does not begin there. Sure, "discipline" proper may be limited to those who are members, and the furthest steps of discipline such as removal from the church rolls obviously require membership in the first place. But elders who wish to be helpful to mere attenders can choose to practice many of the lesser tools of discipline with them. They can still teach and admonish, and depending on the church's stance on the Supper they may suspend a person from partaking, and often these actions may be very helpful even to a non-member.

Second, these matters are usually decided locally, by a godly and well-informed group of elders, for good reason. A key purpose of discipline is to restore and build up the wayward believer, and and taking the best steps toward this requires consideration of what is happening in his heart. It is not really a matter that ought to be decided on a message board by people who do not know the fellow.

Third, matters of cohabitation are not always as simple as "You need to move out!" Would that be abandonment? Are there children involved? It doesn't sound like this is the case in the scenario you've described, but a godly group of elders will likely be asking such questions and might be dealing with a situation that's more complicated than it appears to be to you, who are on the outside looking in.

Fourth, social shunning is not a preferred form of discipline within the Reformed tradition, again for good reason. It doesn't tend to be restorative, and it imposes obligations on church members that are beyond their calling. For you to decide on your own to avoid pleasant conversation with this fellow over coffee after the service, or to impose other social ostracism, is probably not helpful. If your elders were to recommend it in this instance, believing after careful consideration of the whole situation that it would be helpful to the guy, then perhaps it would be appropriate. But it sounds more likely they believe that continued social interaction with others in the church is beneficial to him, and you probably ought to honor their decision about that.

Fifth, if you are concerned that the elders are simply ignoring their responsibility in this matter, your response should not be to take matters into your own hands but to tell them your concerns. They may be able to reassure you that they are addressing the situation (though they surely will not do so perfectly). Or perhaps your concern will cause them to realize they need to step up and do more than they've done so far. In either case, you need to go through your elders rather than decide and implement on your own what you think the elders ought to be doing.
 
WCF 25.2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Encourage this man first and foremost to join himself to Christ's visible church. He needs to recognize and submit to the God-given authority Christ has established within His church (a local session). Of course, part two of this is his behavior is presently that of an unbeliever. These are God's words, not our own. (1 Cor 6:9-11). Lovingly rebuke this man that until his life bears fruits of true repentance, there is no reason to believe him to be saved and therefore no potential for him to become a member. As others have rightly noted, the Lord's Supper is reserved for church member's so he should not be admitted to the table. (Side note: this is why I like the practice of members coming to a physical table to partake of the supper. It is a stark and powerful picture of the sheep and goats being separated when you have members seated together at the table and non-members remaining in the pews/chairs to observe but not partake).
 
I agree with you. I would also add as an elder with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church that this person needs to be pulled to the side and have a discussion of the brevity of his sin. I would even say to that while he does not fall under ecclesiastical discipline. He needs to be forbidden from communion.
Encourage this man first and foremost to join himself to Christ's visible church. He needs to recognize and submit to the God-given authority Christ has established within His church (a local session). Of course, part two of this is his behavior is presently that of an unbeliever. These are God's words, not our own. (1 Cor 6:9-11). Lovingly rebuke this man that until his life bears fruits of true repentance, there is no reason to believe him to be saved and therefore no potential for him to become a member. As others have rightly noted, the Lord's Supper is reserved for church member's so he should not be admitted to the table. (Side note: this is why I like the practice of members coming to a physical table to partake of the supper. It is a stark and powerful picture of the sheep and goats being separated when you have members seated together at the table and non-members remaining in the pews/chairs to observe but not partake).
Amen, well stated. Thank you.
 
Grant, I have a few thoughts:

First, church discipline is not limited to exclusion from the Supper, and usually does not begin there. Sure, "discipline" proper may be limited to those who are members, and the furthest steps of discipline such as removal from the church rolls obviously require membership in the first place. But elders who wish to be helpful to mere attenders can choose to practice many of the lesser tools of discipline with them. They can still teach and admonish, and depending on the church's stance on the Supper they may suspend a person from partaking, and often these actions may be very helpful even to a non-member.

Second, these matters are usually decided locally, by a godly and well-informed group of elders, for good reason. A key purpose of discipline is to restore and build up the wayward believer, and and taking the best steps toward this requires consideration of what is happening in his heart. It is not really a matter that ought to be decided on a message board by people who do not know the fellow.

Third, matters of cohabitation are not always as simple as "You need to move out!" Would that be abandonment? Are there children involved? It doesn't sound like this is the case in the scenario you've described, but a godly group of elders will likely be asking such questions and might be dealing with a situation that's more complicated than it appears to be to you, who are on the outside looking in.

Fourth, social shunning is not a preferred form of discipline within the Reformed tradition, again for good reason. It doesn't tend to be restorative, and it imposes obligations on church members that are beyond their calling. For you to decide on your own to avoid pleasant conversation with this fellow over coffee after the service, or to impose other social ostracism, is probably not helpful. If your elders were to recommend it in this instance, believing after careful consideration of the whole situation that it would be helpful to the guy, then perhaps it would be appropriate. But it sounds more likely they believe that continued social interaction with others in the church is beneficial to him, and you probably ought to honor their decision about that.

Fifth, if you are concerned that the elders are simply ignoring their responsibility in this matter, your response should not be to take matters into your own hands but to tell them your concerns. They may be able to reassure you that they are addressing the situation (though they surely will not do so perfectly). Or perhaps your concern will cause them to realize they need to step up and do more than they've done so far. In either case, you need to go through your elders rather than decide and implement on your own what you think the elders ought to be doing.
Thankyou sir, this post has been most helpful and am hear to learn so these posts are a blessing
 
Grant, I have a few thoughts:

First, church discipline is not limited to exclusion from the Supper, and usually does not begin there. Sure, "discipline" proper may be limited to those who are members, and the furthest steps of discipline such as removal from the church rolls obviously require membership in the first place. But elders who wish to be helpful to mere attenders can choose to practice many of the lesser tools of discipline with them. They can still teach and admonish, and depending on the church's stance on the Supper they may suspend a person from partaking, and often these actions may be very helpful even to a non-member.

Second, these matters are usually decided locally, by a godly and well-informed group of elders, for good reason. A key purpose of discipline is to restore and build up the wayward believer, and and taking the best steps toward this requires consideration of what is happening in his heart. It is not really a matter that ought to be decided on a message board by people who do not know the fellow.

Third, matters of cohabitation are not always as simple as "You need to move out!" Would that be abandonment? Are there children involved? It doesn't sound like this is the case in the scenario you've described, but a godly group of elders will likely be asking such questions and might be dealing with a situation that's more complicated than it appears to be to you, who are on the outside looking in.

Fourth, social shunning is not a preferred form of discipline within the Reformed tradition, again for good reason. It doesn't tend to be restorative, and it imposes obligations on church members that are beyond their calling. For you to decide on your own to avoid pleasant conversation with this fellow over coffee after the service, or to impose other social ostracism, is probably not helpful. If your elders were to recommend it in this instance, believing after careful consideration of the whole situation that it would be helpful to the guy, then perhaps it would be appropriate. But it sounds more likely they believe that continued social interaction with others in the church is beneficial to him, and you probably ought to honor their decision about that.

Fifth, if you are concerned that the elders are simply ignoring their responsibility in this matter, your response should not be to take matters into your own hands but to tell them your concerns. They may be able to reassure you that they are addressing the situation (though they surely will not do so perfectly). Or perhaps your concern will cause them to realize they need to step up and do more than they've done so far. In either case, you need to go through your elders rather than decide and implement on your own what you think the elders ought to be doing.
I did not mean sir total avoidance and if I stated as such I apologize. I meant in terms of engaging in fellowships with outside of church.
 
Grant, I have a few thoughts:

First, church discipline is not limited to exclusion from the Supper, and usually does not begin there. Sure, "discipline" proper may be limited to those who are members, and the furthest steps of discipline such as removal from the church rolls obviously require membership in the first place. But elders who wish to be helpful to mere attenders can choose to practice many of the lesser tools of discipline with them. They can still teach and admonish, and depending on the church's stance on the Supper they may suspend a person from partaking, and often these actions may be very helpful even to a non-member.

Second, these matters are usually decided locally, by a godly and well-informed group of elders, for good reason. A key purpose of discipline is to restore and build up the wayward believer, and and taking the best steps toward this requires consideration of what is happening in his heart. It is not really a matter that ought to be decided on a message board by people who do not know the fellow.

Third, matters of cohabitation are not always as simple as "You need to move out!" Would that be abandonment? Are there children involved? It doesn't sound like this is the case in the scenario you've described, but a godly group of elders will likely be asking such questions and might be dealing with a situation that's more complicated than it appears to be to you, who are on the outside looking in.

Fourth, social shunning is not a preferred form of discipline within the Reformed tradition, again for good reason. It doesn't tend to be restorative, and it imposes obligations on church members that are beyond their calling. For you to decide on your own to avoid pleasant conversation with this fellow over coffee after the service, or to impose other social ostracism, is probably not helpful. If your elders were to recommend it in this instance, believing after careful consideration of the whole situation that it would be helpful to the guy, then perhaps it would be appropriate. But it sounds more likely they believe that continued social interaction with others in the church is beneficial to him, and you probably ought to honor their decision about that.

Fifth, if you are concerned that the elders are simply ignoring their responsibility in this matter, your response should not be to take matters into your own hands but to tell them your concerns. They may be able to reassure you that they are addressing the situation (though they surely will not do so perfectly). Or perhaps your concern will cause them to realize they need to step up and do more than they've done so far. In either case, you need to go through your elders rather than decide and implement on your own what you think the elders ought to be doing.
But thankyou for everything you said it was helpful and enlightening. This is the first time I have dealt with such a situation so was a bit confused but your comments have truly helped so thanks.
 
In matters such as this, what is called for is a sound understanding of biblical ecclesiology.

From a Baptist perspective, I cannot think of a better resource than Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life. It's no longer in print and available copies will set you back a pretty penny. But you can find it free at 9 Marks (here).

From a Presbyterian perspective, I would recommend James Bannerman's The Church of Christ. While there are things a Baptist will disagree with, you will profit from giving serious thought to what he says. And for me, it has helped to sharpen my thinking about my own views which are distinctively baptistic.
I'll get these thanks sir
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top