# Imagine That! A Church That Practices Discipline.



## N. Eshelman (Dec 18, 2008)

This Faux News article is interesting. A woman is upset that her kids will find out about her sins because the church is going to put her under public discipline- so she goes to FOX News about it. 

FOXNews.com - Florida Woman Says Former Church Plans to Make Her Sins Public - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Imagine the nerve of Sessions practicing discipline for sin?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 18, 2008)

And putting it on Fox News isn't going public with her sins?


----------



## Theognome (Dec 18, 2008)

She's obviously not concerned with her kids seeing it revealed to the whole country through national news media. Sounds highly hypocritical to me- and kudo's to that church!

Theognome


----------



## Herald (Dec 18, 2008)

Interesting. Not knowing the church, or how they have employed Matthew 18, it's difficult to comment.


----------



## Quickened (Dec 18, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> And putting it on Fox News isn't going public with her sins?



Ha! Imagine that. Now we all know!!


----------



## Theognome (Dec 18, 2008)

Herald said:


> Interesting. Not knowing the church, or how they have employed Matthew 18, it's difficult to comment.



From the article, it seems she has gone through the initial confrontation, witnesses and that it's to the 'take it to the church' stage- if not beyond. The elders were right in not talking to Fox, though the fact that the pastor spoke to a local paper is distressing to some extent. 

It does make you wonder how far the spin will be taken on this, concerning the Church's ability to minister in accordance to Matthew 18, and other issues in the US.

Theognome


----------



## kalawine (Dec 18, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> And putting it on Fox News isn't going public with her sins?





-----Added 12/18/2008 at 10:24:43 EST-----

Putting aside for the moment that the woman broadcast her sin on her own on Fox News (Sheeeesh!) Does "take it to the Church stage" = broadcast it to the entire congregation?


----------



## staythecourse (Dec 18, 2008)

That church is right on. This is an encouraging read. Thanks for the post.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 18, 2008)

kalawine said:


> Does "take it to the Church stage" = broadcast it to the entire congregation?



Yes.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 18, 2008)

she's afraid her kids will find out?? I imagine her kids aren't stupid as they are 18 and 20.

I think she's more afraid that her kids will also call her on her sin wanting her to be held accountable and how it will effect her relationship with them.

Another way she could have ended this was to marry the man--but it doesn't seem like that was mentioned, or maybe she could get back together with her ex-husband, but the article doesn't even mention him.

But public humiliation?? Nah, not when she's going on the National News to cry foul for a church for upholding their beliefs..


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 18, 2008)

I'm not quite sure I agree with the church's stance. It seems that she left the church, whereupon they continued to threaten to make her sins public unless she repented. Once she left the church her sins were no longer their concern, though they could state publicly that she was no longer a member in good standing. Only if she tries to represent herself as a member in good standing of that particular church should they make her specific sins and her failure to repent public.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Dec 19, 2008)

I don't think she was worried about her kids finding out (I'm sure they already know). I think she doesn't want the public discipline process to happen in front of them because it might hurt them in some way.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Dec 19, 2008)

nicnap said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > Does "take it to the Church stage" = broadcast it to the entire congregation?
> ...



Are you sure? I thought it meant taking it to the elders. Meaning the Session deals, as appropriate, with the offender. If the offender repents; that's all there is to it. If they do not heed the counsel of the Session, then said broadcast takes place. The offender may be suspended from the Lord's Table, and if persistent, excommunicated. We have been studying this issue in our quarterly men's meetings.


----------



## Herald (Dec 19, 2008)

Timothy William said:


> I'm not quite sure I agree with the church's stance. It seems that she left the church, whereupon they continued to threaten to make her sins public unless she repented. Once she left the church her sins were no longer their concern, though they could state publicly that she was no longer a member in good standing. Only if she tries to represent herself as a member in good standing of that particular church should they make her specific sins and her failure to repent public.



I strongly disagree. The purpose of church discipline is restoration, not punishment. Leaving the church in order to continue in sin or to avoid church discipline is not her call. She can physically leave the church, but the pastor and elders have an obligation to seek her repentance. Her leaving does not change that.

The pastor and elders should consider asking the children not to be attendance on the day that their mother is publicly called to repentance. We had to face a similar situation this past year and were in agreement that the wife need not be there while her husband's matter was brought before the church.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 19, 2008)

Herald said:


> Timothy William said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not quite sure I agree with the church's stance. It seems that she left the church, whereupon they continued to threaten to make her sins public unless she repented. Once she left the church her sins were no longer their concern, though they could state publicly that she was no longer a member in good standing. Only if she tries to represent herself as a member in good standing of that particular church should they make her specific sins and her failure to repent public.
> ...



 

As for the children not being there, I think it might be beneficial for them to be. They should be leading the way during prayer time for the repentance of their mother.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 19, 2008)

Herald said:


> Timothy William said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not quite sure I agree with the church's stance. It seems that she left the church, whereupon they continued to threaten to make her sins public unless she repented. Once she left the church her sins were no longer their concern, though they could state publicly that she was no longer a member in good standing. Only if she tries to represent herself as a member in good standing of that particular church should they make her specific sins and her failure to repent public.
> ...



I certainly agree that the purpose of discipline is restoration, but I'm not so sure the church is doing the best thing in this case. If the woman has left the church I'm not sure what good will come from bringing it in front of the entire congregation. I agree the session and her pastor should pursue reconciliation and repentance, but does that include making her known in front of the entire congregation at this point if she no longer considers herself a member? I don't think it is, but I admire the church for confronting sin...


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 19, 2008)

The goal of discipline is restoration. But discipline is also a bounded process, and it cannot actively seek restoration in all circumstances. To attempt to do so is to confuse means and ends, for while the goal is restoration, the means is expulsion. By leaving the church in such circumstances she has effectively expelled herself; also, denying that the church has disciplinary authority is itself a disciplinary offence.

By leaving the church while under disciplinary investigation the member not only puts themselves outside the scope of the disciplinary process, they effectively plead guilty (by taking upon themselves the punishment) of whatever they were charged with. Note also that, unlike a criminal trial, there is no need for a disciplinary process to decide exactly what sins were committed, for the punishment is identical in any case. 

Church discipline is not about convicting for past sins, but for ongoing, unrepentant sin (even if the sin is not being actively committed at that point in time.) It decides not what a member has done wrong in the past, but what they are doing now. A member who removes themselves from the jurisdiction of the church disciplinary process could only be charged for what they have done wrong previously, not what they are doing wrong currently, which is not the point of discipline.

There may be instances where the specific sins of a particular individual need to be known to the wider congregation, for example, if the sins have had other church members as participants or victims, or both. But these situations should be rare. 

In this case, nothing more needs to be said to the congregation but "Ms X was under disciplinary investigation, during which she denied that the church had the authority to discipline her, and removed herself from the church. As such she is to be considered as persona non grata until she repents." There is no reason for the congregation to know the specific details of her sin - be it sexual sin or any other type - in such circumstances.


----------



## asc (Dec 19, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> And putting it on Fox News isn't going public with her sins?



I agree she seems to be reacting in an irrational behavior.
It's like she's decided that the NT needed a higher level of church discipline:
contact the local news and have your sins broadcast to the world...
she obviously knows no shame.


----------



## lukeh021471 (Dec 19, 2008)

*amazing*

Thanks for the article. The church is right.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 19, 2008)

It looks like some of the problem lies with the actions of the minister. He should not have been going to the women of the congregation, and spreading what probably amounted to gossip. 

It also looks like the elders were absent from the process until the final letter was sent out. If so, they were neglecting their shepherding duties, and have unnecessarily complicated an already difficult situation by leaving a void where guidance and brotherly counsel should have been emplaced.

It happens all too often that the sins of the session complicate cases of discipline. As soon as a brother or sister who is being confronted believes a session to be acting in hypocrisy, self interest, or like manner the erring brother will rarely be won back. Not many people feel that their case will be fairly handled where they perceive a court to have become corrupted.


----------



## staythecourse (Dec 19, 2008)

I cannot picture Paul saying, "We had a member leave rather than be disciplined and we won't tell you why." I see the church as up front about the importance of being a part of the body. If a member left rather than be disciplined, it leaves the group confused. This clears things up for the violator, the children (who are in good standing and must make a choice "mom or Christ,") and the rest of the body. Using the body metaphor: the members say, "Hey we lost a pinky." The head says, "We cut it off but we ain't telling you why." The body would be either scared or confused. This action clears it up for all parties.


----------



## Herald (Dec 19, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Timothy William said:
> ...



Consider the larger theological picture. Why did Christ proclaim the truth to the Jews, knowing they would reject Him? 

*2 Corinthians 2:15-17* 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 

Church discipline is not only a call to repentance for the one who has sinned, it is also a warning to those who haven't. That is why the the process is to be followed and completed.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 20, 2008)

Archlute;



> It looks like some of the problem lies with the actions of the minister. He should not have been going to the women of the congregation, and spreading what probably amounted to gossip.



It doesn't sound like that at all to me, it doesn't say he went to the women of the congregation, it says she confided in a mentor.




> Hancock, who is divorced, said the problems began in March, when she started telling her church mentor about her relationship — in what she thought were confidential conversations.
> 
> “As it progressed I told her about it and she said, 'You’ve got to get out, you’re biblically wrong,'” Hancock said.
> 
> Despite knowing her relationship was against church rules, Hancock said she never realized that disclosing it would trigger the first in a three-step process used by the church to deal with sinners: private admonishment, admonishment in the presence of witnesses and finally public admonishment.



Probably a Stephens Minister, or something to that effect, which in most cases things told to the mentor (Stephens Minister) ARE kept in complete confidence, between the caregiver and care receiver, except when there is sin involved..and they confess it..then the mentor or (Stephens Minister) is to let those over them know what's going on, and those who set up those mentoring (caring) relationships can technically go to the person..in our church the leaders would go to the Pastor and let him know what's going on, and let him handle it at that point..they certainly wouldn't keep watch on the persons house to see whats going on..

In our churches Stephens Ministry program, both parties have to sign a confidentiality agreement, and within that agreement it also lets both parties know what is required if such a sin is confessed, and that confidentiality on such issues does not exist. Our program has a Deacon, an Elder and an Associate Pastor who work with the leaders of the program; it's not like someone in the church just starts the program and has no accountability, the church has to pay for the Leadership training and the material used to train those who will be ministering to others.

What the article doesn't tell us, is how long it's taken for it to get to this point..Stephens Ministry relationships can last one to two years--so if this is the program being used, and she confessed to this person she's in a sinful relationship, and the woman tells her she needs to end the relationship..and over a course of months continues to encourages her to end it and the woman refuses..the mentor is required to let her leaders know whats going on..but this person may not have said anything for months..as she was trying to work with her one on one first..


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 20, 2008)

Herald said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly agree that the purpose of discipline is restoration, but I'm not so sure the church is doing the best thing in this case. If the woman has left the church I'm not sure what good will come from bringing it in front of the entire congregation. I agree the session and her pastor should pursue reconciliation and repentance, but does that include making her known in front of the entire congregation at this point if she no longer considers herself a member? I don't think it is, but I admire the church for confronting sin...
> ...


But it is not for the church to judge the individual sins (as opposed to the sin of failing to repent and believe) of those outside the church.

The final action of a church court in the event of obstinate unrepentance is to publicly declare the person to be outside the local body of Christ. This woman has already publicly said that about herself, by her actions in leaving the church while under disciplinary action. Like a defendant at a trial standing in the middle of the courtroom and saying "I am guilty" there is then no need for the judge and jury to deliberate on exactly what evidence convicted the court of their guilt.

Normally, at excommunication, it is necessary to state to the congregation the nature of the offence for which the guilty party is unrepentant. As unpleasant as that may be, the congregation needs to know that there really was just cause for the excommunication. But if a member quits while under disciplinary investigation or prosecution then that itself if sufficient warrant for their excommunication, for they have effectively excommunicated themselves. There is then no further need to publicly give details of which particular sins they were being investigated for.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 20, 2008)

BJClark said:


> Archlute;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are making the assumption that the women were informed by the mentor rather than by the pastor. The article makes no such connection. There is no room for women to be sitting in on a person in a vindictive manner, where the elders should rather be present.

Likewise, when Reformed congregations engage in having pseudo-offices such as a "Stephens Minister" incorporated into their system then trouble will be sure to follow. There needn't be any other position in the church apart from the minister, elders, deacons, and the general office of the laity. A layman can minister as a mentor without the need to institute a series of formal steps such as "leadership training", signing documents, and the like. It gives them a false sense of formal office, and meddles in the affairs over which a minister and elders have primary responsibility.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2008)

Church discipline might be a topic for a thread that we could benefit from.

It would seem once a member takes a vow of membership that includes a vow to submit to the discipline of the church, that is binding in God's eyes.

A member of course can "leave" (might even have good reason to leave) but the "leaving" in God's eyes does not really negate the vow.

So if someone gets caught in adultery, and after biblical process to restore, refuses to repent and it gets to the point of the church using the "keys" Christ gave to His Body (visible) to treat someone as if they were an unbeliever (ex-communication), and the person leaves to avoid that discipline,

The "leaving" doesn't really control the discipline. It can still proceed in that person's absense. That is, the person may be ex communicated _en absentia_ Now their sins are the adultery, impenitence, and failure to keep their vow to submit to the discipline of the church, and probably the slander (ninth commandment) that person will engage in when leaving.

If someone did NOT take a vow of membership that included discipline, then they could of course leave without further process.

In the PCA, the membership vow rightly covers this, and, I think protects all the biblical vital interests:

1) profession of faith in Christ
2) vow to walk obediently
3) vow to support the church
4) vow to submit to the church's discipline
5) vow to study the church's doctrine peaceably

While it does not require a new member to have comprehensive knowledge of the church's doctrinal standards, it does put the person, by their voluntary action, under a promise before God to submit to the discipline of the church.

As I understand it, this does not allow a church member to just leave when discipline, biblically followed, comes, and escape consequences before God. The vow is not conditional, e.g. "I promise to submit to the discipline of the church...but if I ever get to the point of discipline, I may leave, at my own direction and not receive its consequences."

The vow is to God, witnessed by many people. It cannot be broken arbitrarily simply because the church member no longer wishes to be bound by its consequences (cf Ecclesiastes 5:5).

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 06:29:28 EST-----

It's also interesting that, from the news report source only, if that is correct, this person is greatly concerned about what her children will think about her sin. That is right. But there is no evidence she cares what her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ thinks. None.


----------



## APuritansMind (Dec 20, 2008)

Herald said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...



 Bill, I agree. The entire congregation will be warned about the serious error of sin and taught about biblical church discipline. The other alternative would be to read about the circumstances in the paper (of course casting a biased doubt on God's word and the elders) or through the "grapevine." I pray for the elders, the congregation, and her children that remain members of the congregation.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 20, 2008)

1Ti 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 20, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> > kalawine said:
> ...



I was saying yes in her case...she has not repented and therefore it should be taken to the congregation. I agree totally with your statement; I was merely speaking of this case.


----------



## christiana (Dec 20, 2008)

In reading a copy of the letter sent to her by the church it appeared to be very appropriate and concerned for her well being and return to a biblical lifestyle.


----------



## Herald (Dec 20, 2008)

Timothy William said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...



I would point you to the January 2009 issue of Tabletalk magazine. Read the article, "Principle vs. Pragmatism."


----------



## Casey (Dec 20, 2008)

In my humble opinion, the elders' letter to the woman is pastoral and appropriate, whether or not we agree with their application of "tell it to the church" (which may mean, "tell it to all members publicly" or "tell it to the church officers"). It's sad that someone could join a church, expose their unrepentant sin, and expect the church to ignore it. May this cause the woman to ponder her steps.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 20, 2008)

Timothy William said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...



You cannot "quit" a church. That is implicit in your analysis, and it is incorrect. You cannot do that any more than you can be charged with a crime in the U.S., and then decide, "well, I'll just move to Canada, and it will go away."

There are three ways to leave a church:


Transfer
Excommunication
Death


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 20, 2008)

A closer analogy would be someone committing a crime in the US for which the punishment is banishment to Canada. That person flees to Canada of their own accord. There is no way for the US to extradite criminals from Canada. The legal process against them was incomplete when they fled.

Should they then be tried in absentia in the US for the specific crimes of which they stood accused?

Yes, my view is partially motivated by pragmatism. But I am not saying that someone can just choose to leave a church, especially not while under discipline, nor am I saying that they can leave other than by excommunication, transfer or death. I am saying that, by leaving in such circumstances, they excommunicated themselves, and that the specifics of the sins for which they were under discipline are now a moot point. So, for pragmatic reasons, I don't think those specific sins need be publicly announced.


----------



## Herald (Dec 20, 2008)

Timothy William said:


> A closer analogy would be someone committing a crime in the US for which the punishment is banishment to Canada. That person flees to Canada of their own accord. There is no way for the US to extradite criminals from Canada. The legal process against them was incomplete when they fled.
> 
> Should they then be tried in absentia in the US for the specific crimes of which they stood accused?
> 
> Yes, my view is partially motivated by pragmatism. But I am not saying that someone can just choose to leave a church, especially not while under discipline, nor am I saying that they can leave other than by excommunication, transfer or death. I am saying that, by leaving in such circumstances, they excommunicated themselves, and that the specifics of the sins for which they were under discipline are now a moot point. So, for pragmatic reasons, I don't think those specific sins need be publicly announced.



Pragmatism is neither wise nor confessional (1689 LBC 26.7). Excommunication can only be accomplished through an action taken by the lawful officers of the church (pastor and elders). An individual cannot excommunicate themselves. I'll be direct. You are advocating individualism. The individual supercedes the church. That's a dangerous road to take.

The burden is on you to support your pragmatism with scripture and that, within the boundaries of the confessions. If you can't do that, my counsel to you is to drop this line of reasoning.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 20, 2008)

Timothy William said:


> A closer analogy would be someone committing a crime in the US for which the punishment is banishment to Canada. That person flees to Canada of their own accord. There is no way for the US to extradite criminals from Canada. The legal process against them was incomplete when they fled.
> 
> Should they then be tried in absentia in the US for the specific crimes of which they stood accused?
> 
> Yes, my view is partially motivated by pragmatism. But I am not saying that someone can just choose to leave a church, especially not while under discipline, nor am I saying that they can leave other than by excommunication, transfer or death. I am saying that, by leaving in such circumstances, they excommunicated themselves, and that the specifics of the sins for which they were under discipline are now a moot point. So, for pragmatic reasons, I don't think those specific sins need be publicly announced.



We are not permitted to excommunicate ourselves. Period.


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 20, 2008)

"Excommunicate themself" was the wrong phrase for what I was attempting to say, which was that in leaving the church and denying that the elders had any authority over them was itself a disciplinary offense.

However, this discussion seems to have moved tangentially away from the OP, and I'm not sure that it can be continues profitably.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 20, 2008)

Archlute;



> You are making the assumption that the women were informed by the mentor rather than by the pastor. The article makes no such connection. There is no room for women to be sitting in on a person in a vindictive manner, where the elders should rather be present.



With all respect, you are assuming it was the pastor who was gossiping, given what the article says..I take it the Mentor let others know..



> Hancock learned that her private sessions with her mentor hadn’t been so private after all, when in October her mentor pulled her aside in church and asked her come into another room.
> 
> “In the room, there were several women that I never told my business to. And they proceeded to tell me about my business and what I was doing and what a sinner I was — just persecuting me.” Hancock said. “One of the ladies was even saying ‘I was at your house when you didn’t come home all night.’"





> Likewise, when Reformed congregations engage in having pseudo-offices such as a "Stephens Minister" incorporated into their system then trouble will be sure to follow. There needn't be any other position in the church apart from the minister, elders, deacons, and the general office of the laity. A layman can minister as a mentor without the need to institute a series of formal steps such as "leadership training", signing documents, and the like. It gives them a false sense of formal office, and meddles in the affairs over which a minister and elders have primary responsibility.



I would disagree with you on this, as there is no formal office to hold as a Stephens Minister, it is a lay ministry. Even with the pastor, elders and deacons, if they spent as much time w/ each congregant as a Stephens Minister does with their one care receiver each week, they would not have time for anything else.

How often each week do you meet with members of your congregation who are hurting through the death of a spouse? How about the elders and deacons? Do they set aside an hour or two each week to sit and listen to and pray with and encourage and comfort that person, through-out the first year after that loss? What about after a child dies? or if a spouse walked out?
or if a spouse is in the Military in a war zone, do you set aside a time each week to really listen to their concerns and fears and offer them words of comfort and encourage them and pray with them? Other than on the Lords Day? Do your deacons and elders set aside a time each week to do that with those members? 

Do you have time in your schedule to meet with everyone in your congregation who is hurting and in need of that one on one time, once a week for a year or two? 

Our pastors/elders/deacons don't..they may know of the initial needs and be able to help with those, but they don't have the time to really be there for that person as they struggle with those things.

I can not tell you the number of people I have heard say they left a church because nobody was there for them when they needed it most, when they were hurting the most. The pastors would put them off or tell them get over it all ready, trust God..but not giving them an ear to really listen to their hurts.

In Stephens Ministry the lay person is trained to listen and encourage and pray for and with that person, and be there for the person who is hurting, when the pastors/elders/deacons or even family and other friends can not be..and the person is comforted in knowing that at least for an hour or two each week, this person is going to be there for them..through that first holiday, or anniversary of their wedding, or birthday or anniversary of the death of their spouse, when nobody else is, when everyone else is telling them to get over it all ready..or to just trust in God, but yet, not being able to talk about the person and their life together. Typically, after the initial loss, after the funeral and the initial month they get tossed aside and ignored, and even forgotten.

Not everyone knows how to help and Stephens Ministry trains them how to be there. but to be honest, not everyone cares to do that, to be able to set aside that time for another person when they look at their own schedule and how busy they are, they become selfish..but in Stephens they make a commitment to meet with that person once a week, to be there for them.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2008)

Timothy William said:


> The *goal of discipline is restoration.* But discipline is also a bounded process, and *it cannot actively seek restoration in all circumstances.* To attempt to do so is to confuse means and ends, for while the goal is restoration, the means is expulsion. * By leaving the church in such circumstances she has effectively expelled herself; *also, *denying that the church has disciplinary authority is itself a disciplinary offence.*
> 
> By leaving the church while under disciplinary investigation the member not only puts themselves outside the scope of the disciplinary process, they effectively plead guilty (by taking upon themselves the punishment) of whatever they were charged with. Note also that, unlike a criminal trial, there is no need for a disciplinary process to decide exactly what sins were committed, for the punishment is identical in any case.
> 
> ...



There is much correct in what you say. The context of "church discipline" is a bit broader than many commonly think of it in our generation.

It is one of the marks of a biblical church. In fact, John Calvin inferred that it is one of the essentials of a "true church."

Here is what the PCA constitution describes as the purpose, scope, and procedure of "church discipline" (emphasis added)



> PART II
> THE RULES OF DISCIPLINE
> CHAPTER 27
> Discipline – Its Nature, Subjects and Ends
> ...



One thing to keep in mind here. It appears this person vowed before God and publically before the church to walk obediently and to submit to her discipline. This is not a conditional promise.

Ex-communication is by its nature public to the church. It is a final and most drastic remedy after many other loving steps have been followed, ample time is given to repent, and the offender is made well aware of the process.

Earlier steps ordinarily are much more private and involve much time and effort of the church. Sin is costly.

It is generally only extreme, prolonged impenitence that results in ex-communication.

After ex-communication the person is treated "as if" they are an unbeliever by being cut off from the church (this should apply all denominations of the Body of Christ). In effect, at that point, they are formally turned over to God for future discipline. Even then, it is with the hope that God may yet, allow them to be reclaimed.

The ends of discipline are several:

1) the Glory of God
2) the purity of His Church
3) keeping and reclaiming of disobedient sinners

I like the phrase, "The power which Christ has given the Church is for building up, and not for destruction."


----------

