# Excommunication and the "invisible church"



## Sebastian Heck (Jan 31, 2011)

Hi!
According to Reformed polity, we believe if someone is excommunicated, he is outside the bounds of the church outside of which there is no ordinary way of salvation (WCF, Art. 25; Belgic Confession, Art, 28). Thus, he has no grounds for hope of being saved. He is outside the body of Christ.

However, what do we say (in this age of fragmentation of the church) if he later joins, say, a solid Lutheran church (which we would recognize, according to the marks of the church) to be a true church)?

Is he then "in" or "out"?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 31, 2011)

My understanding is an excommunication of membership is to be honored by all "true" churches unless and until the person repents and is restored by "true" church authority.


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Jan 31, 2011)

Of course, it gets interesting when someone is excommunicated (eventually) on account of having become a Baptist who won't submit to the church any longer... Would a Baptist Church "honor" this excommunication? Or would they rather welcome him into their midst?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 31, 2011)

I'm thinking excommunication would be primarily for impenitent immorality, or for an officer, for violation of vows by way of heresy. Changing membership because of a change of major doctrinal views would not be the same case.

It might be a sin to leave unreconciled, to respect true authority, to be self centered entirely in the process, but not at all amounting to an excommunication.


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Jan 31, 2011)

Well, I am assuming "confessional membership", i.e. that members of the church also agree with the confessional standards. (We are a confessional church!)


----------



## TimV (Jan 31, 2011)

> Of course, it gets interesting when someone is excommunicated (eventually) on account of having become a Baptist who won't submit to the church any longer... Would a Baptist Church "honor" this excommunication? Or would they rather welcome him into their midst?



Hey, Sebastian. Is that a question? If so, most Baptist churches would laugh, even those that have a membership. The big Baptist churches around here don't even have membership. And it's pretty much the same with most other churches. Perhaps one out of five hundred would check into and honor a previous churches use of the Keys of the Kingdom.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 31, 2011)

Sebastian Heck said:


> Well, I am assuming "confessional membership", i.e. that members of the church also agree with the confessional standards. (We are a confessional church!)


 
In that case, the vows of a member come into play, but one would have to know the vows as excommunication is a last and most extreme case.

As you are aware, PCA and many reformed denominations would not require comprehensive understanding of, far less agreement with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine for general church membership. For officers, but not members generally.

Therefore, it is hard to conceive of that being a reciprocated grounds for "excommunication."


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Jan 31, 2011)

Well, I have to revise my original question then: GIVEN that we practice confessional (subscription) membership, and GIVEN that new members promise to uphold and defend the Reformed (!) faith as expressed in our confessions (e.g. 3 Forms of Unity), it would be grounds for excommunication (final step!) if someone suddenly became a Baptist and didn't submit to the church anylonger. That's a GIVEN for me!
Now to my question: If we believe that excommunication is positively (though not absolutely) binding (Mt 16:19 - "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."), what happens to someone who then joins a Lutheran church (true church!)

Do we say, he cannot be a Christian because we excommunicated him from a Reformed church and now consider him "a Gentile and a tax collector" (Mt 18:17), EVEN THOUGH he now belongs to a branch of the true church (Lutheran)???
Or do we say: well, he's a member of the true church, so our excommunication really has no effect on his status before God?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 31, 2011)

Is the understanding, that there is no 'true church' outside of that denomination/communion?


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jan 31, 2011)

> Do we say, he cannot be a Christian because we excommunicated him from a Reformed church and now consider him "a Gentile and a tax collector" (Mt 18:17), EVEN THOUGH he now belongs to a branch of the true church (Lutheran)???
> Or do we say: well, he's a member of the true church, so our excommunication really has no effect on his status before God?




I think I'll have to go with a hardy, I don't know. I think the sin and the circumstance may have something to do with it.


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Jan 31, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> Is the understanding, that there is no 'true church' outside of that denomination/communion?


 
No, not at all! By "true church" I mean the three marks of the true church of Christ.


----------



## Andres (Jan 31, 2011)

I think the issue would have to hinge on why a church excommunicated said member. You stated:


Sebastian Heck said:


> GIVEN that we practice confessional (subscription) membership, and GIVEN that new members promise to uphold and defend the Reformed (!) faith as expressed in our confessions (e.g. 3 Forms of Unity), it would be grounds for excommunication (final step!) if someone suddenly became a Baptist and didn't submit to the church anylonger. That's a GIVEN for me!



I would disagree with you that taking up credobaptism is grounds for excommunication. It just seems like a poor example because the reality would be that if a member truly changed their beliefs regarding baptism, they would seek fellowship with a credo church. In that case the member would transfer membership and should still be in good standing when they do so.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 31, 2011)

So if a small reformed church acknowledges a true church beyond its denomination and a member leaves over a point of doctrine to another reformed church (that the original church regards as a 'true church') and somehow the original church excommunicates, I don't see how that could be a valid use of church discipline authority.

Meaning, not binding on the church at large.

It might be a valid use of administrative authority, but not "keys" authority.

The original church would certainly be free to exclude from its own membership, though, unless and until restoration.

Excommunication, it seems to me, means a declaration that the person is to be treated "as if" they are not a believer, not merely a declaration that one can no longer be a member of that particular denomination.


----------



## seajayrice (Jan 31, 2011)

Sebastian Heck said:


> Hi!
> According to Reformed polity, we believe if someone is excommunicated, he is outside the bounds of the church outside of which there is no ordinary way of salvation (WCF, Art. 25; Belgic Confession, Art, 28). *Thus, he has no grounds for hope of being saved.* He is outside the body of Christ.
> 
> However, what do we say (in this age of fragmentation of the church) if he later joins, say, a solid Lutheran church (which we would recognize, according to the marks of the church) to be a true church)?
> ...


 
Do you mean the Believers loss of assurance or loss of salvation?


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Jan 31, 2011)

Andres said:


> I think the issue would have to hinge on why a church excommunicated said member. You stated:
> 
> 
> Sebastian Heck said:
> ...



Well, I agree! IF they leave! But if they don't want to?

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> So if a small reformed church acknowledges a true church beyond its denomination and a member leaves over a point of doctrine to another reformed church (that the original church regards as a 'true church') and somehow the original church excommunicates, I don't see how that could be a valid use of church discipline authority.
> 
> Meaning, not binding on the church at large.
> 
> ...


 
Scott, you're assuming they transfer. I meant that they are excommunicated and then, weeks or months later join such a different church...


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 31, 2011)

I'm thinking a 'transfer' is something done within a denomination, with its permission and by its established procedures, with both churches in agreement.

If I'm understanding, you are saying in a confessional membership church, one "fails to uphold" the doctrine as summarized in the confession and is excommunicated for it- but later wants to join another church. 

Is this what you are asking?


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Jan 31, 2011)

Yes, Scott, English is a difficult language ;-)
Yes, if that happens, what do we say, theologically, with respect to the power of the keys –*in our church he was excluded from communion with the body of Christ, but in the other church down the road, he is received into the bossom of communion. Where does he stand?
Should we say: "Since he never reconciled with us as a church, he is still outside the bounds of the church, as fas as we are concerned!"
Or do we say: "Since he is now (again) part of a true church, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt (judgment of charity) and consider him as part of the body of Christ (even though we just excommunicated him from our church...!!!)

(My question is valid not just for reasons of doctrinal deficiency, but for any matter meriting excommunication, I guess.)


----------



## Jack K (Jan 31, 2011)

Sebastian Heck said:


> Well, I have to revise my original question then: GIVEN that we practice confessional (subscription) membership, and GIVEN that new members promise to uphold and defend the Reformed (!) faith as expressed in our confessions (e.g. 3 Forms of Unity), it would be grounds for excommunication (final step!) if someone suddenly became a Baptist and didn't submit to the church anylonger. That's a GIVEN for me!



I understand this is a given for you. But it is also the reason for your problem.

Excommunication should NOT be used as a tool to enforce agreement with doctrines that are not essential to the making of a true church. If "excommunication" is used that way, it should no longer carry the presumption that excommunicated persons who join another church are outside the normal bounds of salvation. So if you practice confessional subscription membership, and intend to kick people out when their views change, then you need to think of that action as something other than the typical Reformed sort of excommunication.

Excommunication is best used as a tool for restoring persons who practice unrepentant sin or follow heresy in a way that clearly puts them in opposition to God, the ways of his people, and any true church. If you are "excommunicating" folks who don't meet that standard, it would be best to think of it as something other than excommunication. When you don't, you run into exactly the sort of problem you're asking about, and there's no good answer.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 31, 2011)

Sebastian Heck said:


> Yes, Scott, English is a difficult language ;-)
> A marvelously rich one, at that.
> 
> Yes, if that happens, what do we say, theologically, with respect to the power of the keys –*in our church he was excluded from communion with the body of Christ, but in the other church down the road, he is received into the bossom of communion. Where does he stand?
> ...



It seems that ex-communication is only after biblical process, for open, public scandalous sin, a disorderly life pattern that does not show evidence of God's grace working in them (infallible though that judgment might be).

It is a declaration to the church universal, not just the denomination, and has trans-denominational authority (by the power of the "keys") when so done.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 31, 2011)

The Kirk Session isn't saying it knows infallibly that this person is unsaved when it suspends someone's communicant membership. But that person is acting in a manner unworthy of a recipient of the Lord's Supper and may or may not be saved. The hope is that through church sanctions being blessed to the person that they will be led to repentance by the Holy Spirit whether they are truly saved or not.

Likewise when Kirk Sessions permit someone to become a communicant member they aren't claiming infallibility, but should do it properly and with due diligence.

Christ promises that where church sanctions are carried out properly and appropriately the powers of Heaven i.e. the Holy Spirit will bless the work of the session.



> Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mathew 18:18, ESV)



Christ isn't saying that He will be behind church sanctions that are wrongly or inappropriately done.

Excommunication is hopefully temporary and it's ending is conditional on the individual showing signs of repentance and restoration to faith - not that they can lose their saving faith if they have it, but it may sometimes look like that e.g. David, Solomon, Peter, the incestuous man in the Corinthian letters. Or their showing signs of true faith and repentance if they never had it to begin with.

The Kirk Session shouldn't pretend to be able to see the invisible church with any degree of infallibility.


----------



## Edward (Jan 31, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Excommunication is hopefully temporary and it's ending is conditional on the individual showing signs of repentance and restoration to faith - not that they can lose their saving faith if they have it, but it may sometimes look like that e.g. David, Solomon, Peter, the incestuous man in the Corinthian letters. Or their showing signs of true faith and repentance if they never had it to begin with.



Agreed. The purpose of excommunication is not to try to send someone to hell, but to restore him, if he is, in fact, a Christian. This should normally occur within the local body administering the discipline, but I could see where it might be possible to restore him into another body. But I would think that the leaders of the two bodies should be in communication as to the sin, the rehabilitation, and the restoration.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 31, 2011)

Sebastian Heck said:


> Of course, it gets interesting when someone is excommunicated (eventually) on account of having become a Baptist who won't submit to the church any longer... Would a Baptist Church "honor" this excommunication? Or would they rather welcome him into their midst?


 
A baptist church would rejoice that the person was going to follow Jesus command to believe and be baptized. They would "honor" his desire to openly confess the work of God by openly confessing that work by believers baptism. I do not think a padeo church would excommunicate someone who sees believers baptism as it is taught in the NT. I would think they would appeal to their system of teaching trying to retain the person,until it became clear that a change was necessary


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 1, 2011)

As I understand the biblical authority of the "keys:"

Authority is given the church to "open" the Kingdom of God in the sense of by teaching and preaching the gospel, and the Word of God

and

to "close" the Kingdom of God in the sense of church discipline, the final step being ex-communication from the visible church

The "keys" are what our Lord was referencing when He spoke to Peter about, and the binding and loosing process (Matthew 18:18) and authority that would follow by church officers.

A church visible is infallible, of course. Yet, the authority must be validly (biblically) exercised.

So, the President (of the U.S.A.) has the authority of the office, not based on whether he makes decisions we agree with.

But he does not have authority to act unconstitutionally.

But even when he does act unconstitutionally (invalidly), he does not lose the authority of his office.

That's important to understand when we are talking about the most extreme form of discipline, "ex-communicating" one from the visible church. 

It's not about merely banishing someone from the membership roles of a denomination. 

It's a declaration to the believing and unbelieving world that the person's impenitence, measured through a biblical process of confirmation in the mouth of witnesses, subject to the judgment of those God has appointed as officers for his people, is such that there appears no life pattern of a believer.

Hence, the person is to be treated "as if" an unbeliever, unless and until he repents and is restored.

_The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes,_ GI Williamson, on Chapter XXX, Of Church Censures, is very helpful in understanding this topic.

Also, one of the best summaries of its valid use, in context is in the Presbyterian Church in America's Book of Church Order:



> PART II
> 
> THE RULES OF DISCIPLINE
> CHAPTER 27
> ...


----------

