# Church Discipline- especially ex-communication



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2008)

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 (Dec 20, 2008)

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 (Dec 21, 2008)

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 (Dec 21, 2008)

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 (Dec 21, 2008)

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 (Dec 21, 2008)

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 (Dec 21, 2008)

> 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 (Dec 21, 2008)

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 (Dec 21, 2008)

satz said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2008)

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 (Dec 22, 2008)

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 (Dec 22, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> 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
> ...



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.
> ...


----------

