Shunning?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redaimie

Puritan Board Freshman
Is shunning a biblical church practice?
I keep hearing it being done more & more lately in some churches.
Is there a legitimate reason for shunning people or a biblical precedence for it?

Being rather new here I'm not sure this topic has been covered before so if it has, I'm sorry & could you point me to the links please.
 
Excommunication is a means of grace for the impenitent, to be cut off from the body and sacraments is meant to drive a true believer into despair and come back like a prodigal son. He is welcome back at that point.
 
Last edited:
I do understand Excommunication & the reason for it but what I mean is do you than not speak to an excommunicated member?
 
Redaimie said:
I do understand Excommunication & the reason for it but what I mean is do you than not speak to an excommunicated member?
Click to expand...
It would appear self-defeating of the excommunication to fellowship with an unrepentant soul, if he comes to you seeking reconciliation then yes lead him back to church.
 
There were some people in our church who were in flagrant unrepentatnt sin. I'm not sure if the elders finally dealt with it or not, but they're gone. I told them the truth about what they were doing, and guess what? I didn't have to shun them - they didn't want to seek me out anymore.
 
trevorjohnson said:
How do we not encourage ecclesiastical totalitarianism when this happens.

Strange question?

Well, here is an example:

One person gets shunned. His friends in the church still talk to him. They get disciplined for talking to the shunned one. The church takes a firm stand and no one in the church can talk to the shunned one. Even though all the church does not agree with the shunning.

It seems that tight social cohesion (like among the Amish) must be a prerequisite and that ecclesiastical abuse is very often likely to result from adding to clear Biblical commands and making extra-biblical commands by which the members must adhere to or else also be disciplined.
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems that shunning is practiced by some sects, and by some cults, more as a way of controlling people than as a legitimate form of discipline. Shunning seems to be a degraded form of excommunication. The latter is for the purpose of restoration, while the former is a form of punishment/control.
 
Redaimie said:
Is shunning a biblical church practice?
I keep hearing it being done more & more lately in some churches.
Is there a legitimate reason for shunning people or a biblical precedence for it?

Being rather new here I'm not sure this topic has been covered before so if it has, I'm sorry & could you point me to the links please.
Click to expand...


NO! A thousand time "NO"! Ex-communication and shunning are NOT the same thing. When a church member is ex-communicated we are to consider them as an unbeliever. They now become a mission field. I would appeal to the individual to be reconciled to God. It may be wise to allow a period of time to go by in order for the dust to settle, but I would not shy away from contact with the person. Only God knows the heart. Now, I would not conduct business as usual with the person who has been "put out." The broken fellowship with the body is a means whereby God may call them to repentance. My contact with them would be out of a desire to see them come to faith in Christ (if truly unsaved), or to repent and be restored to fellowship.
 
We must in love, considering ourselves, cut off fellowship from that person. We must be firm, but not unkind.


1Cr 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Cr 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Cr 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Cr 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
 
Excommunication and shunning are two separate things. We've experience the latter just for leaving a church...seriously, lost all our friends except one and at least our relative was still permitted to speak to us. Most cases, it's not even formally done...just happens.

Excommunication, at least a person is made aware.
 
BaptistInCrisis said:
NO! A thousand time "NO"! Ex-communication and shunning are NOT the same thing. When a church member is ex-communicated we are to consider them as an unbeliever. They now become a mission field. I would appeal to the individual to be reconciled to God. It may be wise to allow a period of time to go by in order for the dust to settle, but I would not shy away from contact with the person. Only God knows the heart. Now, I would not conduct business as usual with the person who has been "put out." The broken fellowship with the body is a means whereby God may call them to repentance. My contact with them would be out of a desire to see them come to faith in Christ (if truly unsaved), or to repent and be restored to fellowship.
Click to expand...

LadyFlynt said:
Excommunication and shunning are two separate things. We've experience the latter just for leaving a church...seriously, lost all our friends except one and at least our relative was still permitted to speak to us. Most cases, it's not even formally done...just happens.

Excommunication, at least a person is made aware.
Click to expand...

:agree: Been shunned for 10+ years now...
 
Excommunication and shunning are two separate things. We've experience the latter just for leaving a church...seriously, lost all our friends except one and at least our relative was still permitted to speak to us. Most cases, it's not even formally done...just happens.
Click to expand...

I'm so sorry that must have really hurt.

That's what I'm getting at, I know cults practice it but why does a christian church consider this a biblical thing to do in issues such as leaving a church? I have heard the practice defended by Christians and I just don't understand it.
 
Yes, it seems that shunning is practiced by some sects, and by some cults, more as a way of controlling people than as a legitimate form of discipline. Shunning seems to be a degraded form of excommunication. The latter is for the purpose of restoration, while the former is a form of punishment/control.
Click to expand...


That makes sense shunning does sound manipulative to me.
 
It would appear self-defeating of the excommunication to fellowship with an unrepentant soul, if he comes to you seeking reconciliation then yes lead him back to church.
Click to expand...

But how can a person be reconciled if contact is broken? I mean if you treat a person as a non believer (which you should when they are excommunicated) than how can you proclaim the gospel to them if you shun them?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that most of the time, the shunning is unannounced...it just happens. The church is not directed to shun, but they know they have to. This way the leadership remains "blameless".
 
Unofficial gossip, a sermon or two, and unofficial meetings. I have seen one place, where there was no membership, it was announced from the pulpit. The guy had moved across country, but had kept in contact on an issue (music in the church...discussion of kinds of music...don't know the whole situation), and the church was told not to have futhur communication.
 
trevorjohnson said:
I am fascinated with the whole process by which a church decides to shun someone and then forces everyone else to ignore you.

Those who have been shunned (sorry if impolite) would you be willing to share how the nuts and bolts unfolding took place.

What processes must a church do in order to do this? A church bulletin, unofficial gossip, a sermon, a business meeting? And afterwards, what happens if another church member actually talks to you or calls you on the phone?

What sorts of things do they say to you? Instead of "I'll be praying for you" do they say, "Get thee behind me.." or "repent soon." What sorts of shunning etiquette exists and how does this affect social intercourse?
Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

My wife are currently being shunned for leaving a church 5 years ago. It is much more uncomfortable for the shunners because they do not have a reason for doing it other than some unofficial gossip.
 
Paul said in 1 Cor 5 not even to eat with someone who claims to be a believer but is living in unrepentant licentiousness. It sounds to me like we aren't supposed to have any contact with them at all. If they stop calling themselves a believer while living in such a way I suppose that would be a different story, but the pragmatic question of "how are they ever supposed to get better if we stop talking to them?" doesn't seem appropriate after acknowledging that God's ways are best. If you were to have contact with the excommunicated person who still holds their profession of faith even while living in direct opposition to it, it seems like the only reason to do so would be to remind them of their need to repent. Going out to dinner with this person just to have a good time and fellowshipping with them like you would with any brother who is in good standing in the Church would just be approving of the way they're living. I'm not saying you have to turn around and go the other direction if you see them on the street, but a few words in passing when you happen to come across someone is different from purposefully fellowshipping with the person for reasons other than what I mentioned.
 
CarolinaCalvinist said:
Paul said in 1 Cor 5 not even to eat with someone who claims to be a believer but is living in unrepentant licentiousness. It sounds to me like we aren't supposed to have any contact with them at all. If they stop calling themselves a believer while living in such a way I suppose that would be a different story, but the pragmatic question of "how are they ever supposed to get better if we stop talking to them?" doesn't seem appropriate after acknowledging that God's ways are best. If you were to have contact with the excommunicated person who still holds their profession of faith even while living in direct opposition to it, it seems like the only reason to do so would be to remind them of their need to repent. Going out to dinner with this person just to have a good time and fellowshipping with them like you would with any brother who is in good standing in the Church would just be approving of the way they're living. I'm not saying you have to turn around and go the other direction if you see them on the street, but a few words in passing when you happen to come across someone is different from purposefully fellowshipping with the person for reasons other than what I mentioned.
Click to expand...
:ditto: I am very unsure of how best to address this matter, and also how one should address someone who professed faith for a brief time, but who never joined a church prior to rejecting Christianity.
 
Many times the issue someone is being shunned over has nothing to do with excommunication or any doctrinal bearing.
 
trevorjohnson said:
Yes, it seems hard for a church to encourage members to be nasty and unfriendly to one another.

It seems like a tender care accompanied by a refusal to give the Lord's Supper or to acknowledge them as members would be the right approach. It appears that they could even be encouraged to regularly attend church during their time of excommunication and this would do more to urge their repentance.
Click to expand...

But according to Paul we're not supposed to have any fellowship with them, not just bar them from the table.
 
Could it maybe have something to do with the charge? I mean hypothetically if someone is excommunicated for say joining the RC church should you shun them or continue to talk to them?

What about relatives who profess Christ but not in reality, they may never have been excommunicated because their church doesn't practice it but we don't shun them do we?
 
For a historic Reformed treatment of excommunication (following due process) and its implications for contact with the excommunicated, see the Scottish First Book of Discipline (1560):

First, if the offence is secret and known to few, and rather stands in suspicion than in manifest probation, the offender ought to be privately admonished to abstain from all appearance of evil; which, if he promises to do, and to declare himself sober, honest, and one that fears God, and fears to offend his brethren, then may the secret admonition suffice for his correction. But if he either contemns the admonition, or, after promise made, does show himself no more circumspect than he was before, then must the minister admonish him; to whom if he is found disobedient, they must proceed according to the rule of Christ, as after shall be declared.

If the crime is public, and such as is heinous, as fornication, drunkenness, fighting, common swearing, or execration, then ought the offender to be called into the presence of the minister, elders, and deacons, where his sin and offence ought to be declared and aggredged [ stressed], so that his conscience may feel how far he has offended God, and what slander he has raised in the church. If signs of unfeigned repentance appear in him, and if he requires to be admitted to public repentance, the ministry may appoint unto him a day when the whole church convenes together, that in presence of all he may testify the repentance which before them he professed: which, if he accepts, and with reverence does, confessing his sin, and damning the same, and earnestly desiring the congregation to pray to God with him for mercy, and to accept him in their society, notwithstanding his former offence, then the church may, and ought [to] receive him as a penitent. For the church ought to be no more severe than God declares himself to be, who witnesses that, In whatsoever hour a sinner unfeignedly repents, and turns from his wicked way, that he will not remember one of his iniquities [cf. Ezek. 18:21-22; 33:14-16]. And therefore the church ought diligently to advert that it excommunicate not those whom God absolves.

If the offender called before the ministry is found stubborn, hard-hearted, or one in whom no sign of repentance appears, then must he be dismissed with an exhortation to consider the dangerous estate in which he stands; assuring him, if they find in him no other token of amendment of life, that they will be compelled to seek a further remedy. If he within a certain space shows his repentance to the ministry, they must present him to the church as before is said.

But if he continues in his impenitence, then the church must be admonished that such crimes are committed amongst them, which by the ministry has been reprehended, and the person provoked to repent; whereof, because no signs appear unto them, they could not but signify unto the church the crimes, but not the person, requiring them earnestly to call to God to move and touch the heart of the offender, so that suddenly and earnestly he may repent.

If the person maligns, then the next day of public assembly, the crime and the person must be both notified unto the church, and their judgment must be required, if that such crimes ought to be suffered unpunished amongst them. Request also would be made to the most discreet and to the nearest friends of the offender to travail with him to bring him to knowledge of himself, and of his dangerous estate; with a commandment given to all men to call to God for the conversion of the impenitent. If a solemn and a special prayer were made and drawn for that purpose, the thing should be the more gravely done.

The third Sunday, the minister ought to require if the impenitent has declared any signs of repentance to any of the ministry; and if he has, then may the minister appoint him to be examined by the whole ministry, either then instantly, or at another day affixed to the consistory: and if repentance appears, as well of the crime, as of his long contempt, then may he be presented to the church, and make his confession, and to be accepted, as before is said. But if no man signifies his repentance, then he ought to be excommunicated; and by the mouth of the minister, consent of the ministry, and commandment of the church, such a contemner must be pronounced excommunicated from God, and from the society of his church.

After which sentence may no person (his wife and family only excepted) have any kind of conversation with him, be it in eating and drinking, buying or selling, yea, in saluting or talking with him, except that it be at the commandment or licence of the ministry for his conversion; that he, by such means confounded, seeing himself abhorred of the faithful and godly, may have occasion to repent and be so saved. The sentence of his excommunication must be published universally throughout the realm, lest that any man should pretend ignorance.

His children begotten or born after that sentence and before his repentance, may not be admitted to baptism, till either they are of age to require the same, or else that the mother, or some of his especial friends, members of the church, offer and present the child, abhorring and damning the iniquity and obstinate contempt of the impenitent. If any think it severe that the child should be punished for the iniquity of the father, let them understand that the sacraments appertain only to the faithful and to their seed; but such as stubbornly contemn all godly admonition, and obstinately remain in their iniquity, cannot be accounted amongst the faithful.
Click to expand...

Also, see the Scottish Order of Excommunication and Public Repentance (1569).
 
CarolinaCalvinist said:
But according to Paul we're not supposed to have any fellowship with them, not just bar them from the table.
Click to expand...

If they are excommunicated, then you treat them as an unbeliever. You treat them like one of your enemies (Matt. 5:44). If they are hungry, you feed them. If they need cloths or a place to sleep, you give it to them (Rom. 12:20).

While you cannot have Christian fellowship with an unbeliever (excommunicate), that does not mean we are to shun the person and have nothing to do with them. We are permitted to have normal, human social interactions.
 
tcalbrecht said:
If they are excommunicated, then you treat them as an unbeliever. You treat them like one of your enemies (Matt. 5:44). If they are hungry, you feed them. If they need cloths or a place to sleep, you give it to them (Rom. 12:20).

While you cannot have Christian fellowship with an unbeliever (excommunicate), that does not mean we are to shun the person and have nothing to do with them. We are permitted to have normal, human social interactions.
Click to expand...

Does the phrase "normal, human social interactions" include sharing a meal with them? If so, then I'd say you're wrong, because Paul specifically says we are not even to eat with them. The person may have been excommunicated from the Church but if they still consider themselves a follower of Christ and haven't repented, we are to have nothing to do with them. The person in 1 Cor 5 has been excommunicated and Paul still says not even to eat with them if they call themselves a brother.
 
VirginiaHuguenot said:
For a historic Reformed treatment of excommunication (following due process) and its implications for contact with the excommunicated, see the Scottish First Book of Discipline (1560):

After which sentence may no person (his wife and family only excepted) have any kind of conversation with him, be it in eating and drinking, buying or selling, yea, in saluting or talking with him, except that it be at the commandment or licence of the ministry for his conversion; that he, by such means confounded, seeing himself abhorred of the faithful and godly, may have occasion to repent and be so saved. The sentence of his excommunication must be published universally throughout the realm, lest that any man should pretend ignorance.

Also, see the Scottish Order of Excommunication and Public Repentance (1569).
Click to expand...

Thanks Andrew. This is what I was trying to say earlier, but I'm just a college student with a bible so sometimes it helps to have a historical argument like this one to point to.
 
Excommunication does not remove family relations and responsibilities. As far as the extent of shunning, Pardovan limits the practice of the Church of Scotland to all unnecessary converse:
The effects of this sentence.
 § 12. After the pronouncing of this sentence, the minister is to warn the people of the effects thereof; such as, that they hold that person to be cast out of the communion of the church, and therefore they are to shun all unnecessary converse with him; nevertheless excommunication dissolveth not the bonds of civil or natural relations. By the act of Assembly 1596, revived Assembly 1638, art. 16. sess. 23 such are appointed to be excommunicated as will not forbear the company of excommunicated persons. ..." Book IV Title Six. § 12. The warning is repeated in the forms of process chapter eight toward the end.
Walter Steuart of Pardovan, Collections and observations concerning the worship, discipline, and government of the Church of Scotland : in four books (Anderson: Edinburgh, 1709 first edition; Edinburgh: W. Gray, 1770). I did not see in Steuart where "shunning" was to be practiced in what is called the lesser excommunication.
 
Is there a difference between someone excommunicated who still claims to be a Christian and someone who is excommunicated for heresy, but who later completely rejects Christianity overtly and publicly?

Furthermore, what reaction should I as a believer take if a friend of mine perhaps is excommunicated from a different denominational body than mine (PCA for now), particularly if the group in question is prone to abuse or excessive sweeping excommunications?
 
Theoretical said:
Is there a difference between someone excommunicated who still claims to be a Christian and someone who is excommunicated for heresy, but who later completely rejects Christianity overtly and publicly?

Furthermore, what reaction should I as a believer take if a friend of mine perhaps is excommunicated from a different denominational body than mine (PCA for now), particularly if the group in question is prone to abuse or excessive sweeping excommunications?
Click to expand...
Once delivered there is no distinction that I know as far as how the church should view the person in either case. As to the last, because of the rent condition of the church, churches who take biblical discipline seriously have to carry themselves in such a sentence above reproach if other churches are going to give it any credence. And even then they may disagree and simply overturn the sentence by ignoring it. Perhaps in our day excommunication should be reserved for cases that are so heinous they easily are recognized across denominations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top