Question on Excommunication

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Is the power to bind and loose (forbid and allow entrance into the fellowship of believers) something Christ gave to the church in general, or to the Apostles in particular?

I know many will say "take it before the church" - but more exegetically precise, the keys seems to have been given tot he apostles and leaders of the church.

Would it be fair to say that the congregation has the right and power to overrule the pastor on matters of church discipline? (i.e. if a man was to be excommunicated, and the elders brought it before the people of the church, do they have the power to outvote the pastor or elders in order to not excommunicate the man?)

This brings to mind the smaller corpus of the church - the fmaily - does, then, the right of the wife and children have the power to outvote the husband on any matter of discipline?

Your thoughts?

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by webmaster]

 

[wsw201]

The keys of the Kingdom were given to the church and to be exercised by the officers (I got both in :yes: ).

The congregation does not have the authority to override the decision of the Elders in regards to church discipline otherwise what's the point. God is a God of order and has prescribed an orderly way for the Church to operate and that is through the Church government which He has established.

Regarding the family, I think this is comparing apples and oranges. Though the family is a part of the Church, they are not a church. Now should children be able to have a vote as to discipline? I wish I had a vote when I was a kid.

Matt, as a side note, I had a discussion with someone the other day about the Standards being a "compromise" document because it was a "national" assembly. I know that there were serious differences in regards to church govt and the relationship between church and state, but overall, considering that you are going through the various arguments at the time the Standards were written, based on what you have read so far, would you consider the Standards a compromise document?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Not remotely close. I do not think your friend is thinking further enough along the spectrum.

If England was "basically" Christian (for arguments sake) why would it be a wrong thing for most of the country to decide to formulate (for the good of Europe) a government in the church that is biblical, in order to be unified? Where in the world is the compromise in that?

What made it a nationally assembly was that ministers gathered together by the appointment of Parliament because of the turning tide of the Mother Church in conformity tot he prayer book (i.e. godly men did not want to see the church overruled by a monarch's desire (Elizabeth at first) to be a despot. the WHOLE IDEA of the prayer book was to keep people ignorant. Truly. Why? Elizabeth cannot rule despotically, a thinking church of Christian who arrest their culture with the bible. She wanted to keep them as ignorant as possible, as did many of the subsequent kings. (Interesting eh? Who'd a thought?)

The reason i was thinking a bit more through this question, was the fact that when I was at a Reformed Baptist Church, they allowed the congregation to vote as to whether someone should be excommunicated or not. That made little sense to me. They also allow the congregation to yearly evaluate the minister in order to keep him or depose him. This also seemed quite strange to me at the time. Think about it, if the church was dominated by 18 year old members, basically, their democratic desires would win the day every time. That would go for ordination of an officer, excommunication, and minister deposition. Or, if the women were the greater crowd, the church would be ruled by them in effect.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:a638b925a9][i:a638b925a9]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:a638b925a9]

The reason i was thinking a bit more through this question, was the fact that when I was at a Reformed Baptist Church, they allowed the congregation to vote as to whether someone should be excommunicated or not. That made little sense to me.[/quote:a638b925a9]

This makes no sense. The congregation does not vote to do so, its representatives (the elders) do. If someone in the congregation objects, they may take it to the next level of review by a Memorial or Complaint.

[quote:a638b925a9]They also allow the congregation to yearly evaluate the minister in order to keep him or depose him. This also seemed quite strange to me at the time. Think about it, if the church was dominated by 18 year old members, basically, their democratic desires would win the day every time. That would go for ordination of an officer, excommunication, and minister deposition. Or, if the women were the greater crowd, the church would be ruled by them in effect. [/quote:a638b925a9]

This is excellent evidence for Presbytery - remember that a Presbytery must concur for a pastoral relation to be dissolved. I don't know the form used in that church, but likely they are violating their vow to support the pastor and have him free from worldly cares. No good RB church that I know of does this.

 

[kceaster]

Matt...

You're right about Elizabeth. She hated the sermon mostly because it would educate the people too much. That is why she wanted short homilies and preferably "form" homilies so that it could be controlled what was said.

On the idea of the Elders, though, do we not see this same pattern in the OT congregation? Was not punishment exacted by the elders? Would we see their actions as a binding and loosing?

At least, I think so.

In Christ,

KC

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Fred,

I have to let you know, "Albert Martin's" side of the fence on Reformed Baptist congregations do this. This is how they operate at Emmanuel Baptist Church, and still do. At any time, the congregation could depose thier ministers.

I'm not necessarily blaming Martin, but his elders, of which are respective of various RB congregations, do this, and other elders who joined Emmanuel from other RB churches fit right into this same thinking.


[quote:c7fddc94d0]
The congregation does not vote to do so, its representatives (the elders) do.
[/quote:c7fddc94d0]

Ah, congregationalism at its finest! This is the inevitable outcome, or worse.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by webmaster]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Really, if a denomination (or congregation) is just going to pick and choose which issues the elders have authority on, and which ones the people do, like, "OK, the elders have the final say on this, but for some reason the people can vote as to the issue of excommunication," there's not much point in having an elder-based church order at all. They must choose which way they will have it.

I actually see this as parallel to the synergism/monergism issue. For instance, when I requested to meet with a pastor at my church regarding Calvinistic soteriology, he described himself as a "Calv-armianian." He says that He gives much of the credit to God alone, but doesn't think you need to go the [i:8d803b4cbb]whole[/i:8d803b4cbb] way in order to consistently hold that salvation is of the Lord. What synergists don't realize is that they are synergists no matter what "degree" per se of synergism they embrace - either it's all God's work, or it's split between God and man. Even if you only hold that man has the tiniest little part, you're a synergist, period, and cannot call yourself a "partial monergist."

It's the same way with the elder authority issue - just as people inevitably make themselves [i:8d803b4cbb]full[/i:8d803b4cbb] synergists at heart even by giving man a [i:8d803b4cbb]little[/i:8d803b4cbb] salvific credit, so people inevitably make themselves [i:8d803b4cbb]full[/i:8d803b4cbb] denyers of elder authority by "picking and choosing" as to the issues to which elder authority applies. In salvation, once you give [i:8d803b4cbb]any[/i:8d803b4cbb] credit to man, you've taken it out of God's hands; in church order, once you start picking and choosing which matters the elders have authority in, you've thus denied they have [i:8d803b4cbb]any true[/i:8d803b4cbb] authority.

 

[JohnV]

Fred:

You said,
[quote:53a6519791]The congregation does not vote to do so, its representatives (the elders) do. If someone in the congregation objects, they may take it to the next level of review by a Memorial or Complaint. [/quote:53a6519791]

Could you elaborate, please? What is a Memorial or a Complaint? How is it different than bringing charges or accusing? What role does a congregation have in a miscarriage of justice, if any?

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by JohnV]

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:dce58de1ec][i:dce58de1ec]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:dce58de1ec]
Fred:

You said,
[quote:dce58de1ec]The congregation does not vote to do so, its representatives (the elders) do. If someone in the congregation objects, they may take it to the next level of review by a Memorial or Complaint. [/quote:dce58de1ec]

Could you elaborate, please? What is a Memorial or a Complaint? How is it different than bringing charges or accusing? What role does a congregation have in a miscarriage of justice, if any?

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by JohnV] [/quote:dce58de1ec]

Sorry for not being clear John.

Let me first set forth the context for my comments:

• 
  [*:dce58de1ec]An excommunication proceeding takes place
  [*:dce58de1ec]That excommunication is an action of the Session, not the congregation
  [*:dce58de1ec]Someone in the congregation believes the Session to be in error
  [/list:dce58de1ec]
  
  So we have several possibilities that could take place:
  
  • 
    [*:dce58de1ec]We could overturn Biblical church polity and have a congregational vote, ignoring the authority and office of the elders
    [*:dce58de1ec]The excommunicated person could appeal the judgment to the next highest court of jurisdiction
    [*:dce58de1ec]Even if the excommunicated person did not appeal, a member of the congregation could take action to have the matter reviewed
    [/list:dce58de1ec]
    
    Please note that in most polity, including the PCA, the right of appeal of an action of a court lies solely with the party in interest (the judicial concept of "standing&quot , and only if the party in interest actually submitted to a trial. For example, PCA BCO 42-1 and 42-2 state:
    [quote:dce58de1ec]
    42-1. An appeal is the transfer to a higher court of a judicial case on which judgment has been rendered in a lower court, and [b:dce58de1ec]is allowable only to the party against whom the decision has been rendered[/b:dce58de1ec]. The parties shall be known as the appellant and appellee. An appeal cannot be made to any court other than the next higher, except with its consent.
    
    42-2. Only those who have submitted to a regular trial are entitled to an appeal.[/quote:dce58de1ec]
    
    The OPC Book of Discipline, 7-1, says much the same thing:
    [quote:dce58de1ec]
    1. An appeal in a judicial case is the removal of the case to an appellate judicatory by the filing of a petition asking that the final judgment of a lower judicatory be reversed or modified. [b:dce58de1ec]An appeal may be taken by the accused, or by a judicatory whose judgment has been reversed or modified by an appellate judicatory[/b:dce58de1ec].[/quote:dce58de1ec]
    
    If a party does not decide (for whatever reason) to appeal an adverse judgment, a complaint may be filed by any communing member in good standing.
    
    Thus in the PCA:
    
    [quote:dce58de1ec]
    43-1. A complaint is a written representation made against some act or decision of a court of the Church. It is the [b:dce58de1ec]right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject[/b:dce58de1ec], except that no complaint is allowable in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending
    [/quote:dce58de1ec]
    
    and in the OPC:
    
    [quote:dce58de1ec]BOD 9-1. A complaint is a written representation, other than an appeal or a protest, charging a judicatory with delinquency or error. [b:dce58de1ec]It may be brought by an officer or other member of the church against the session or the presbytery to which he is subject[/b:dce58de1ec], by one session against another session, by a session against the presbytery which has jurisdiction over it, or by one presbytery against another presbytery.[/quote:dce58de1ec]
    
    Notice, however, that a complaint may not be filed if an appeal has already been filed (or the grounds that a party in interest has a superior interest over another person).
    
    So in our hypothetical case, if a member was excommunicated, but did not want to appeal, a member of the church in question could lodge a complaint with the Session. If the complaint is denied by the Session, the complaintant can appeal the decision on the compaint to the Presbytery, and then to GA if necessary. All of which is to say that a congregation is not at the mercy of its elders - in fact just one member can compel a higher court to review the matter. Much better than a majority vote!
    
    A memorial is an special communication taken by a lower court or member, advising the higher court to look into a matter of irregularity. I have to confess that memorials are a bit vague in my mind - I think there are but a handful of men in the PCA that actually know how to use on (I can think of a half dozen offhand)
    
    Does that explain some?