Excommunication Taken Too Far?

[ServantOfKing]

Should a church excommunicate someone who was a member but moved and is attending a different church?
And if this person is excommunicated, does that mean that we cannot continue being friends with him?



[Edited on 10-9-2006 by ServantOfKing]

 

[fredtgreco]

You cannot exercise discipline over someone that is not a member of your church.

 

[Dave L]

This is my knee-jerk take on the situation:

The young man should be encouraged to explain the situation to his new church - even if he is dealing with the problem, a compassionate watchful eye could help stop him falling to temptation again.

If he refuses to tell the church, because it's "in the past", then his old church should give the new church the accurate facts, and allow them to proceed as they see fit.

And certain members of the old church should be remonstrated with because of their gossip.


Of course, the problem is that it is the old church leaders who should suggest this to him, and you make it clear that they are the ones wanting to excommunicate him.

Not good.

 

[Puddleglum]

If he's a member of the new church (which if I'm reading your post correctly, he is), then the old church doesn't have authority over him and I don't see how they could excommunicate him, even if they want to.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
You cannot exercise discipline over someone that is not a member of your church.

Fred, I agree... but at the same time I don't think your position takes into account the large - and growing - percentage of people who won't bother becoming members in the first place. In fact, there are some churches/traditions (like my native EFCA) that emphasize church attendance and downplay church membership. I know 4 people who regularly attend churches, give money, etc... but won't become official members. Sinful? I believe so. But untouchable by the church? I don't think so. They can still be disciplined by virtue of the fact that they have become defacto members. Think about it: virtually any course of action you take in such a situation does amount to discipline.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong and we should just sit by with our hands in our pants, but I won't do it. If someone comes and regularly attends my church, but (for one reason or another) isn't a member, and I find out that he's (let's say) beating his wife... he's going to be confronted.

*** This is not intended to serve as a commentary or opinion as to what should occur in the present situation! ***

 

[fredtgreco]

Ben,

I think you have a point. I was referring mostly to the fact that this person had "joined another church"" and hence left the jurisdiction (if you will) of the old church

 

[Scott Bushey]

The old church should contact the new church in regards to the situation. The new church should have requested referral from the originating church. in my opinion, membership should not be handled without referral or officialtransfer; this is where the breakdown occurs. If the transfer never occured, then the young man is still part of the membership at the original church, hence under their oversight; at least until his membership is transferred.

 

[Larry Hughes]

but the church leaders are convinced that he is lost and must be made an example of.[\quote]

The worse part is this statement. His struggle in no way means he is "lost". This is the success of repugnant "conversion experience" false theology. That stuff makes me so sick I want to vomit. Second, the purpose of church discipline is not "to make an example of him" like a pharisiacal public stoning. Rather to bring him back into the flock AS a believer. Not to down play the young man's situation AT ALL but I would be more concerned of this "church" even being a Christian church. The rumors and gossip flying is quite telling.

L

 

[ServantOfKing]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes

but the church leaders are convinced that he is lost and must be made an example of.[\quote]

The worse part is this statement. His struggle in no way means he is "lost". This is the success of repugnant "conversion experience" false theology. That stuff makes me so sick I want to vomit. Second, the purpose of church discipline is not "to make an example of him" like a pharisiacal public stoning. Rather to bring him back into the flock AS a believer. Not to down play the young man's situation AT ALL but I would be more concerned of this "church" even being a Christian church. The rumors and gossip flying is quite telling.

L

This particular church stresses both the doctrines of grace, but also the "conversion experience" theology. They phrase it in the sense of "when did you repent" instead of "when did you choose Christ." They believe that a struggle as such (drugs, alcohol, etc) is uncharacteristic of a believer and probably means that you're lost and going to Hell.
This particular church teaches that church discipline is both for reconciliation, but also to "make an example" in the sense that they want younger children in the church to see what happens if you rebel. Sort of a way to prevent sin. I'm not really sure what to make of that.

I agree with you that the bigger problem here is the way that the old church is handling it. I think if anything, he should be apologized to for being gossipped about and should receive encouragement and exhortation to lead a godly life.
Isn't excommunication only to be exercised when the person is unrepentant of sin, not for the actual sinful behavior? It seems like if excommunication was for people in sin, then the whole church would have to be excommunicated. Since he has apologized, cleaned up his act, wouldn't church discipline be unnecessary whether or not he was going to a new church?

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree with you that the bigger problem here is the way that the old church is handling it. I think if anything, he should be apologized to for being gossipped about and should receive encouragement and exhortation to lead a godly life.
Isn't excommunication only to be exercised when the person is unrepentant of sin, not for the actual sinful behavior? It seems like if excommunication was for people in sin, then the whole church would have to be excommunicated. Since he has apologized, cleaned up his act, wouldn't church discipline be unnecessary whether or not he was going to a new church?

Servant,
If you will refer to my previous post, you will see where the breakdown has occured..........Without this foundation, the church is a broken string of pearls, flying on the seat of her pants. The error rests in the doctrine of ecclesiology and the management of Christs church. Men whom shouldn't be leading her, are. If they were called, they would know this simple thing.





[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[beej6]

I read the original post in a way similar to Scott. Church membership is a defined relationship - it's not just attending or tithing, it's "I agree to join this particular body and submit to it." So the young man in question was still under the membership of the first church and not the second.

If they decided to excommunicate him without talking with him and counseling him first, that's an error, and should be a recourse of last resort after other discipline (if warranted), private first then public. It sounds like the young man is reconciling and so there is no warrant to excommunicate. If they are sore about "losing" him to another church, they need to communicate to the other church. Perhaps graciously they could agree to transfer his care to the new church if they have no doctrinal quarrel, or simply refer him if so.

 

[AdamM]

I think Fred is correct that the former church has no formal jurisdiction in this matter, if they have previously released the young man from membership. That doesn't mean folks at his old church can't pray for him, encourage him to break the habit and work with his new church, but if churches are going to start excommunicating non-members, who don't attend the church, my bet is a pot smoking kid would be pretty low on the priority list.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Ashley,

Thanks. Yes their greater problem is their false view of repentance (sorrow for sin + I stop, evidence of repentance becomes my stopping, hence no room for struggles). Biblical repentance is sorrow for sin, contrition not attrition + trusting in Christ. Their view of church discipline is deplorable and I would not attend that church any more than a mormon church. I say that without reservation at all. And I'm for church discipline and seen it work more than once when done biblically. What they don't see is their gossiping and backbiting even over his problem is a greater sin than his drug problem, most deplorable.

Ldh

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[ServantOfKing]

Larry, thanks for your response!
When you say that the view of church discipline is wrong, do you mean the way it's been handled with the gossipping or the view that it is for "Reconciliation and to serve as an example?" Thanks for your help!

 

[Larry Hughes]

Ashley,

Just from what is being said, only, the gossiping and backbiting are symptoms of the real problem.

Reconciliation is correct.

To serve as an example is the wrong in the sense they appear to be approaching it.

When the "serves as an example" becomes a kind of "we are stoning you for sin" or "protecting our witness", then it´s clearly wrong. The gossiping and backbiting appear to show or be the evidence of this as the underlying current. Also, I've seen horrid forms of so called "church discipline" for sins made by members but it was not in a sense toward restoring them in forgiveness and grace but more about "appearances and embarrassment". Today, since stoning would be a capital offense according to the laws of the State, some truly pharisiacal churches produce a kind of "social stoning" in order to protect "their (false deluded) purity".

It sounds like their "œexample making" is a another way of saying, "œThe church, this particular body, doesn´t have any REAL sinners just pretend ones with minor peccadilloes that really don´t need a beaten, forsaken, and bloody Savior hanging on a cross but could clean up just as well in an Islamic temple or some other ethos religion, and this one REAL sinner needs to be made an example of so we pretend sinners and false saints won´t look so bad. That is so we REALLY won´t look like REAL sinners housing REAL sinners needing real forgiveness at a most profound and unthinkable cost, God the Son Himself." That´s what their so called church discipline sounds like.

Real church discipline should be along the lines of Galatians 6 among other references:

1-3, "œBrethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself."

Blessings,

Larry

[Edited on 7-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[turmeric]

I think Flannary O'Connor said that one of her characters figured out that he could avoid Jesus by avoiding sin.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Meg,

Wow, now that's a quote with some teeth. I'm putting that one in my hip pocket. I love short quotes that pack a nuclear bomb.

Thanks much,

Larry

 

[Puritanhead]

This red text is some hindsight 20/20 revision editing: I was wrong here in this post below for the reasons explained in my last post. I was not competent to speak here on this matter. I should have held my tongue. I apologize. Scott is right, particularly given that he came back to the original jurisdiction issue which Fred raised first. Presbyterians have a superior judicial system for dealing with these matters, plenty of Biblical safeguards, several modes of discipline from warning/rebuke to suspension to excommunication. Moreover, the circumstantial evidence of gossips and their hyperbole would have not been weighed, but rather the objective evidence of wrong-doing. I am sorry for speaking here, and I embarassed myself mightily, but I admit I was wrong in my affirmation.

Bear in mind that my libertarian instincts make me reflexively zealous for the rights for the accused; and yet I admit that I would be foolish to assert that Presbyterians don't take "due process" seriously.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
You cannot exercise discipline over someone that is not a member of your church.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The old church should contact the new church in regards to the situation.

Didn't she qualify her inquiry with the statement that gossips and backbiter exagerated everything? Nothing like the Presbyterian Patriot Act to hound people to the ends of the earth with judgmentalism "” and hanging the presumptious, exagerated gossip of one congregation over someone's head to hound him for perpetuity, whereever he roams, in all fifty states throughout the continental United States.

Church discipline is a local matter. And there are limitations on what any church can do, because a church body is possessed of sinners, and does not possess God's omniscience. Some matters ought to be lifted up to God.

Churches should focus on discipline in glaring cases like marital infidelity and shacking-up, and that discpline should always begin privately between elders/pastors and the offending party. People say that church discipline is not used enough, but the few times it is, it is often capricious and doesn't seek reconciliation. Didn't Jesus say, "Go and sin no more?"

If I have learned anything about sinful men in the flesh... it is that people, even those professedly imbued with Christianity and who claim the Holy Spirit, are prone to judgmentalism and self-righteousness. Somethings are better left unsaid sometimes, and I think the notion that a church would hang a stigmatism over someone's head who is not even a member is terrible, particularly given the circumstances posed here.

[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by fredtgreco
You cannot exercise discipline over someone that is not a member of your church.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The old church should contact the new church in regards to the situation.

Didn't she qualify her inquiry with the statement that gossips and backbiter exagerrated everything? Nothing like the Presbyterian Patriot Act to hound people to the ends of the earth with judgmentalism "” and hanging the presumptious, exagerrated gossip of one congregation over someone's head to hound him for perpetuity, whereever he roams, in all fifty states throughout the continental United States.

Church discipline is a local matter. And there are limitations on what any church can do, because a church body is possessed of sinners, and does not possess God's omniscience. Some matters ought to be lifted up to God.

Churches should focus on discipline in glaring cases like marital infidelity and shacking-up, and that discpline should always begin privately between elders/pastors and the offending party. People say that church discipline is not used enough, but the few times it is, it is often capricious and doesn't seek reconciliation. Didn't Jesus say, "Go and sin no more?"

If I have learned anything about sinful men in the flesh... it is that people, even those professedly imbued with Christianity and who claim the Holy Spirit, are prone to judgmentalism and self-righteousness. Somethings are better left unsaid sometimes, and I think the notion that a church would hang a stigmatism over someone's head who is not even a member is terrible, particularly given the circumstances posed here.

(Note: the following is addressed to the question of discipline in general and not to this particular case, which probably isn't properly a subject for discussion in a public forum such as this.)

Church discipline is only a local matter within your congregational scheme. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I think what Scott was saying was that if there is a legitimate issue, if the young man has been accorded due process, etc. and is under discipline or if action is pending then the old church should contact the new church. Otherwise those under discipline in one church could just move on to another one with a clean slate. It would be like a a man facing prosecution in one state being able to avoid the prosecution altogether by simply moving to another state and starting with a clean slate there.

I do agree that discipline is probably not used enough and that when it is used, it is no doubt often misused.

I also have some concerns with the idea that someone must be a member to be disciplined in any way. I agree with Ben here. There are millions who never join any church. In one sense this this is an escape from discipline and accountability in many ways. They may not be under jurisdiction the way a member is, but there are still things that can be done.

Also, the question of the widespread practice of open communion in our day comes into play here, (I think it's a big reason for people not joining churches) but that is probably a subject for another thread.

[Edited on 7-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Not exactly applicable but maybe helpful, this is what Durham says about when a person, in this case a heretic, is not a member of any local congregation. James Durham, The Dying Man.s Testament to the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990; 2000 etext) Chapter 3 Section 3. Concerning Doctrinal Scandals
WHAT IF HE IS NO FIXED MEMBER OF ANY PARTICULAR CONGREGATION?
(2.) It may be asked, .What if the person is no fixed member of any
particular congregation, who yet infects others?. ANSWER. This cannot
be sufficient to exempt from censure. Because [1.], he is a member of the
catholic church. Therefore censures must some way reach him.
Otherways, supposing a man to disclaim all particular congregations, he
might be a member of the church, who yet could be reached by no
censure. [2.] He might claim the privileges in any particular congregation,
if he should carry fairly as he is a member of the church catholic.
Therefore it would seem by proportion and rule of contraries, that
presbyteries may reach him with their censures, if by his miscarriages he
becomes offensive to the people. [3.] We see that the Church of Ephesus
(Rev. 2), judicially tried and censured those who called themselves
apostles, who, it.s like[ly], being strangers, obtruded themselves under
that title upon them, and so could not be accounted members of that
church. And indeed, it is no less needful for the edification of the people
of such particular congregations, and for guarding them from the hurt that
may come by vageing persons, than that either they be censured
somewhere by one congregation, or many, in associated church
judicatories; or, at least that some public note and mark be put upon such,
that others may have warning to eschew them, as the word may be taken
[in] Rom. 16:17, 18 and 2 Thes. 3:14, which is there spoken of busy
bodies and wanderers without any certain calling or station.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I think what Scott was saying was that if there is a legitimate issue, if the young man has been accorded due process, etc. and is under discipline or if action is pending then the old church should contact the new church.

Exactly. This is the major issue in the church today. Churches do not communicate w/ each other. In regards to discipline, it's always the pastors fault or his elders; they have acted impulsively or not graciously enough; they are preaching fire and brimstone or some ridiculous accusation along those lines. The receiving church always wants to act more graciously and embrace the hurting [sic] person. Hogwash! Grow a spine! Listen to Christ. Stand together. I guess thats just too much to ask.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Dave L
And certain members of the old church should be remonstrated with because of their gossip.

A church that reprimands gossips. That would be a first for Baptists, Congregationalists or Presbyterians. When would that ever happen?
:bigsmile:

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Gossip is actually quite often preached against in our church and the elders take it as a very serious sin.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The old church should then tell the new church he is being indicted, deny him membership, and send him back. Members do not transfer memberships; churches do. Thats why I am saying that churches do not stick together. I know that Matt would not accept this member in under these conditions; but how many churches today would bypass an additional tithe for the sake of truth-real truth? Ultimately, they fabricate a truth, condolning the error and accept the person w/ open arms. This is wrong, and Christ hates it!

And for the record, when Christ said, go and sin no more, He meant, Go join yourself to a body of believers who have a pastor and submit to that pastor and it's leadership; tithe, take the supper, get involved, etc. etc. etc. ......and sin no more.


[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Puritanhead]

Scott,

I could really stand to shut up sometime, and try to listen and learn rather than jump on the horse and start charging. This was a clarion example.

I was having a tendency to think of the discipline like a civil matter, and hence called for restraint and grace, because I was thinking a tarnished reputation or excommunication was the end result; when you in sharp contrast more aptly thought of it for its rightful purpose and within the procedural grounds which you took for granted. (Though, I had to go researching myself.)

I was wrong in my statement of how this should be handled, and erased my second misleading post as it contributes absolutely nothing, and only kept the first statement because my deleting it would skew the thread. I should have held my tongue. I apologize, though I learned something in studying the matter today, and I also gained a respect for something you Presbyterians have, that many other churches don't have regarding the procedural formalities of discipline (i.e. due process), which has more than adequate safeguards within a Biblical framework.

I was also ignoratio elenchi (missing the point) myself. The circumstantial evidence of the hyperbole of gossips could very likely be weighed and dismissed once the formalities of discipline began while a judicious approach could still be taken based on objective testimony.

Given that you came back to original jurisdiction issue; you are exactly right. Admittedly, Presbyterians have more safeguards than any other system, as they formalize the Biblical prescriptive mode of discipline. Also, they place emphasis on private rebuke first, and have multiple modes of discipline, presumably admonition, rebuke, suspension before excommunication which only comes as a last result. The prescriptive nature of the formalities makes it far from arbitrary as it is in some churches that write their discipline procedures in pencil, and change them as they go along. Whatever circumstances there are, would be addresesed here following an indictment.

I just emphasize that we shouldn't look past the purpose of reconciliation in discipline. I readily concede, the problems that befall misapplication and non-use of church discipline (and its non-use) are a bigger problem in non-Presbyterian churches.

I ask for your forgiveness for my stepping on the toes of elder, and speaking to an issue I was not competent to speak to.

Signed,
Ryan
the guy with the foot-shaped mouth.



[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Exactly. This is the major issue in the church today. Churches do not communicate w/ each other. In regards to discipline, it's always the pastors fault or his elders; they have acted impulsively or not graciously enough; they are preaching fire and brimstone or some ridiculous accusation along those lines. The receiving church always wants to act more graciously and embrace the hurting [sic] person. Hogwash! Grow a spine! Listen to Christ. Stand together. I guess thats just too much to ask.

But what happens in the case where the leadership of the old church has acted improperly (see WCF 31:3), and let say that it has a congregational form of government, with no graded courts and right to an appeal? Does the new church then assume the role of court of appeal, or are they forced to take the word of the original leadership?

How does this work in practice?

 

[Puritanhead]

Abusus non tollit usum

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
But what happens in the case where the leadership of the old church has acted improperly (see WCF 31:3), and let say that it has a congregational form of government, with no graded courts and right to an appeal? Does the new church then assume the role of court of appeal, or are they forced to take the word of the original leadership?

How does this work in practice?

One thing I was certain of when this hypothetical began. The original congregation always has original jurisdiction. You cannot transfer jurisdiction / venue to another congregation in any church polity (congregational or presbyterian). A whole can of worms is opened by trying to resolve such matters at another church, and it is destructive of due process if one takes discipline seriously and embraces a Biblical mode for it. Simply put, it is antithetical to procedural due process to transfer discipline proceedings. We have to come back to that fact.

Granted, I do think I had a legitimate concern in being weary of transfering such matters. However, Scott's second affirmation that accounts for original jurisdiction was right on the money, hence my concession that I was wrong in large part, and that he was hitting the nail on the head in principle.

Abusus non tollit usum - Wrong use does not preclude proper use (nor does the potential for wrong use.)

[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
One thing I was certain of when this hypothetical began. The original congregation always has original jurisdiction. You cannot transfer jurisdiction / venue to another congregation in any church polity (congregational or presbyterian). A whole can of worms is opened by trying to resolve such matters at another church, and it is destructive of due process if one takes discipline seriously and embraces a Biblical mode for it. Simply put, it is antithetical to procedural due process to transfer discipline proceedings. We have to come back to that fact.

Granted, I do think I had a legitimate concern in being weary of transfering such matters. However, Scott's second affirmation that accounts for original jurisdiction was right on the money, hence my concession that I was wrong in large part, and that he was hitting the nail on the head in principle.

Abusus non tollit usum - Wrong use does not preclude proper use (nor does the potential for wrong use.)

[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Puritanhead]

So, in the case of a congregational church which acts improperly, the only recourse for the individual who was acted against improperly is to appeal to another congregation. They then become the arbiter. If they agree with the original ruling they will not receive the individual. If they disagree, and find the original court acted improperly, then they may receive the individual in good conscience. They may even go so far as to issue a letter of rebuke to the original court/church.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Exactly. This is the major issue in the church today. Churches do not communicate w/ each other. In regards to discipline, it's always the pastors fault or his elders; they have acted impulsively or not graciously enough; they are preaching fire and brimstone or some ridiculous accusation along those lines. The receiving church always wants to act more graciously and embrace the hurting [sic] person. Hogwash! Grow a spine! Listen to Christ. Stand together. I guess thats just too much to ask.

But what happens in the case where the leadership of the old church has acted improperly (see WCF 31:3), and let say that it has a congregational form of government, with no graded courts and right to an appeal? Does the new church then assume the role of court of appeal, or are they forced to take the word of the original leadership?

How does this work in practice?

Tom,
Just saw this. I am speaking in terms of a Presbyterian government set up like the RPCGA or OPC. Practically speaking, if it was congregational or the like, and under the premise you pose, this would present an obvious problem.

I imagine, in these circles, as I have aluded to above, the definitions, judgements, processes are evaluated on an individual, personal, subjective basis and are no greater than a wax nose.