# Practical effects of ex-communication church discipline



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2008)

What is your understanding of the practical effects of a person who is ex-communicated from a particular church?

Assume for purposes of the poll that a biblical process was followed up that point and that


> The power which Christ has given the Church is for building up, and not for destruction.



You may choose as many as apply.


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 20, 2008)

I didn't vote. What do you mean by church discipline? Do you mean the person has been approached by elders and not repented, but still claims to be a believer? Or is this someone who after being approached by elders claims they are no longer a believer? If they deny Christ, they ought to be out completely, but people should continue praying for them. 

If the person does not see what it is they have done wrong and won't repent, then it is a matter of barring them from the Lord's Table and from doing activities in the church other than worship or teaching times. 

I don't believe it is ever right to not have contact with someone, because it is often in the contact that the person repents. There should be love, prayer and a non-tolerant attitude toward the sin.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2008)

> JBaldwin
> Puritanboard Junior
> 
> What do you mean by church discipline? Do you mean the person has been approached by elders and not repented, but still claims to be a believer? Or is this someone who after being approached by elders claims they are no longer a believer?



The poll has in view a person, a member, who has been dealt with by the denomination's formal (judicial) process, which would have included several biblical steps before ex-communication, and will not repent of open, known, scandalous sin.


----------



## Herald (Dec 20, 2008)

The practical effects? The unrepentant person usually defends their actions or acts in defiance of what they know is right. But the goal is repentance and restoration. The church needs to be ready to welcome back the person who repents. Part of that welcoming back is not to allow the brother or sister to live with a cloud over their head. We must avoid slander, gossip and alienation.

If church discipline is practiced correctly we will understand that we are, indeed, our brothers keeper. Church discipline is not reserved only for cases of adultery or divorce. If we know that our brother is in sin, we are to love our brother by going to them privately. In order to do that we must have a close enough relationship to be heard by our brother. This means we should be engaging one another more than on The Lord's Day. I wonder if we loved each other the way John commanded whether ex-communication would be even more infrequent.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 20, 2008)

Your options leave a great deal to be desired. Handing someone over to the devil for sifting should mean we pray for their repentance and ultimate return to the fold.


----------



## TimV (Dec 20, 2008)

> Your options leave a great deal to be desired. Handing someone over to the devil for sifting should mean we pray for their repentance and ultimate return to the fold.



I see you're a member of the PCA. The PCA BCO doesn't allow for just praying in the case of excommunication, and I doubt that the PCA is different than any other Reformed church on that score, so I'm not sure what would be gained by adding that as a poll option.


----------



## Hippo (Dec 20, 2008)

Why on earth would you want them to cease attending and hearing the Gospel preached? This would be the ordinary method of securing repentance.

I would have thought they should be removed from any office and the sacrements could be witheld, what more would be justified in the majority of cases?


----------



## shackleton (Dec 20, 2008)

I thought the idea of church discipline was to scare people, to give them a sort of "time-out" so they can think of what they are doing and repent. Unfortunately with so many churches in any given area they will most likely just go to a church that just wants numbers.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 20, 2008)

I also sincerely hope that whomever put "have no contact with them" did not also put "evangelise them as an unbeliever" for the two would be in direct opposition of the other, yes?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2008)

Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order
the rules of discipline



> chapter 27
> 
> discipline – its nature, subjects and ends
> 
> ...


----------



## Augusta (Dec 20, 2008)

You can't allow them to stay in the church because the church is to be protected from such people and why should they repent if nothing has changed hardly and they still get to come to church? Just barring them from the table is one of the steps right. You are way past that once you get to excommunication.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 09:56:04 EST-----

JC you are right they are incongruent. I think people are picking that to try to be softies but it defeats the purpose. I am sure that elders are capable of staying in limited contact to see if there is a sign of repentance and that it should be left to them.


----------



## Herald (Dec 20, 2008)

Ex-communicating is not the same as preventing the person from actually attending the worship service. Ex-communicating is removing the person from the blessings of the visible church and considering them as not part of the invisible church. They cannot partake of the Lord's Supper or true fellowship. They are objects of evangelism, and a standing call to repentance. Short of using force to prevent them from walking in the building this would be the reality of ex-communication. Practically speaking, I doubt the individual would want to attend services after being ex-communicated unless it was because of true repentance.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2008)

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).
> ...


[/QUOTE]


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 21, 2008)

Herald said:


> Ex-communicating is removing the person from the blessings of the visible church and considering them as not part of the invisible church. They cannot partake of the Lord's Supper or true fellowship. They are objects of evangelism, and a standing call to repentance.



I think 1 Corinthians 5 makes it clear that we must take it a step further. Beyond the fact that, unlike unbelievers, we call the ex-communicated to repent of specific willful sin, we are "not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner - not even to eat with such a person" (1 Cor 5:9). This is in light of the fact that this mandate does not include the "people of this world" (v. 10), since we would then need to go out of the world. The reason is that we judge those who are in the church according to Scripture, not those without. We leave those without to be judged by God alone (vv 12-13). This is one of the reasons we put those who are characterized by unbelief out of the church (excommunicate). They are then left to be judged by God alone. "Therefore put away from yourselves the evil person" (v. 13 & Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7; 1 Cor. 5:2).


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Ex-communicating is removing the person from the blessings of the visible church and considering them as not part of the invisible church. They cannot partake of the Lord's Supper or true fellowship. They are objects of evangelism, and a standing call to repentance.
> ...



I didn't take the time to delineate the blessings of the visible church that would be withheld from a person who is ex-communicated. I was writing from the big picture perspective.


----------



## Tim (Dec 22, 2008)

Good thread. You don't hear about discipline and ex-communication much in the church (at least I haven't), so it is seldom discussed.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 22, 2008)

John Calvin said a true church is characterized by three marks,

Right doctrine
Right administration of the sacraments
Right administration of church discipline

What is your understanding of what Scripture teaches of the practical effect of excommunication discipline?

-----Added 12/22/2008 at 05:28:33 EST-----

The poll has closed.

Based on 24 votes of what voters understood to be the biblical practical affectations of ex-communication church discipline, one category received a majority vote (54%)


> Individual church members ought evangelize them as unbelievers outside of church life only




Almost 46% of voters said ex-communicated members could remain at the church even after ex-communication, as non-members. This would seem to be a contradictory result within the poll results.


8% said a church member who has taken member vows is immediately freed from church discipline process if they no longer wish to be bound by that vow (e.g. leaving)

0% said we ought not pray for an ex-communicated person.


----------



## TimV (Dec 22, 2008)

Tim in the SA Reformed churches they call it censure, and that's always been the way a small community keeps people in line. It doesn't happen often, but just the threat of it usually brings people back into line. I saw it happen to a guy who was sleeping with his farm laborers. He didn't repent, and no body would even greet him. They figured



> 1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.


Means what it seems like it means.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 23, 2008)

Based on research from passages from James Durham, other Puritan Board threads such as this one http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/excommunication-books-15674/, the PCA Book of Church Order, and GI Williamson's, "Church Censures" chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith for Study cases, here's what seems to be the most biblical:



> Christians ought not have contact with the person 3 12.50%
> Christians ought to avoid contact after ex-communication, but this does not undo family or business contractual obligations.
> 
> Christians ought not pray for the person 0 0%
> ...


----------

