Resources for Handling Excommunicated Family Members
- Thread starter TylerRay
- Start date
- Status
The URCNA Form for Excommunication exhorts the congregation to "keep no company with him/her", but when circumstances permit to "exhort the brother to repentance". In other words, the relationship of familial fraternization is now broken, but that will not mean all contact is completely shut off, but now takes on a more narrow evangelistic focus.
James Durham, Concerning Scandal, has some to say about it.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [18] 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. [19] Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. [20] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
1 Corinthians 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
[3] For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. [4] When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
[6] Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? [7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
[9] I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—[10] not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. [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. [12] For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? [13] God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Titus 3:10-11 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, [11] knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
1 Timothy 1:19-20 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
2 Thessalonians 3:13-15 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Excommunication is the OT is seen as being 'cut off'. And that cut off was being put to death.
1 Corinthians 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
[3] For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. [4] When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
[6] Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? [7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
[9] I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—[10] not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. [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. [12] For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? [13] God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Titus 3:10-11 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, [11] knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
1 Timothy 1:19-20 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
2 Thessalonians 3:13-15 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Excommunication is the OT is seen as being 'cut off'. And that cut off was being put to death.
Here is the place in James Durham, Concerning Scandal I was thinking of (note, natural duties are not removed by excommunication).
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).
3. Yet even then prayer may be made for them. For excommunication is
no evidence that a person has sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, or that
their sin is a sin unto death. And their necessities, if they are in want, may
and should be supplied, because they are men, and it is natural to supply
such. They may be helped also against unjust violence, or from any personal
hazard, if they fall in it. And as occasion offers, folks may give a weighty serious
word of admonition unto them, and such like. Because by such means,
the end of the sentence and its weight are furthered, and not weakened.
4. These that are in natural relations, ought to walk in the duties of them,
as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, magistrates
and subjects, etc., for what nature binds, the church does not loose.
5. Men may follow civil business, as paying or exacting payment of debts,
buying or selling, and may walk in such things as are requisite for humane
fellowship and society; because, though church censures are to humble and
shame men, by bearing in on them their sinfulness, yet it is not to undo
them, and simply to take away a being from them.
6. Yet all these things would be done with them in such a manner, as (1),
the persons may show their indignation at their way, even when they express
tenderness to their persons. (2) It would be done in a different manner
from what [ordinarily is] with others not under such a sentence, that
so they may bear out their respect to the sentence, even when they show
respect to them. Therefore, there would not be such frequency in meddling
with such persons, nor would it be with familiarity or many words, and
long discourses to other purposes, nor with laughing, and with such cheerfulness,
intimacy or complacency, as is used with others. But, in a word, the
business would be done, and other things abstained from. (3) When what is
necessary is past, except it is on necessity, folks would not eat or drink with
them at the time of doing their business, or after the closing of the same;
because that does not necessarily belong to them as men, and by so doing,
the due distance would not be kept. And this is the great practical [point],
so to carry to them as the weight of the sentence is not lessened, nor they
prejudged of what otherways is necessary to their being, but that so every
opportunity may be taken, whereby their edification may be advanced.
James Durham, Treatise Concerning Scandal (2014) 219-221. This and other back list titles once published by Naphtali Press are available in print on demand reprints at Naphtali Press's Books and Publications Spotlight
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).
3. Yet even then prayer may be made for them. For excommunication is
no evidence that a person has sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, or that
their sin is a sin unto death. And their necessities, if they are in want, may
and should be supplied, because they are men, and it is natural to supply
such. They may be helped also against unjust violence, or from any personal
hazard, if they fall in it. And as occasion offers, folks may give a weighty serious
word of admonition unto them, and such like. Because by such means,
the end of the sentence and its weight are furthered, and not weakened.
4. These that are in natural relations, ought to walk in the duties of them,
as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, magistrates
and subjects, etc., for what nature binds, the church does not loose.
5. Men may follow civil business, as paying or exacting payment of debts,
buying or selling, and may walk in such things as are requisite for humane
fellowship and society; because, though church censures are to humble and
shame men, by bearing in on them their sinfulness, yet it is not to undo
them, and simply to take away a being from them.
6. Yet all these things would be done with them in such a manner, as (1),
the persons may show their indignation at their way, even when they express
tenderness to their persons. (2) It would be done in a different manner
from what [ordinarily is] with others not under such a sentence, that
so they may bear out their respect to the sentence, even when they show
respect to them. Therefore, there would not be such frequency in meddling
with such persons, nor would it be with familiarity or many words, and
long discourses to other purposes, nor with laughing, and with such cheerfulness,
intimacy or complacency, as is used with others. But, in a word, the
business would be done, and other things abstained from. (3) When what is
necessary is past, except it is on necessity, folks would not eat or drink with
them at the time of doing their business, or after the closing of the same;
because that does not necessarily belong to them as men, and by so doing,
the due distance would not be kept. And this is the great practical [point],
so to carry to them as the weight of the sentence is not lessened, nor they
prejudged of what otherways is necessary to their being, but that so every
opportunity may be taken, whereby their edification may be advanced.
James Durham, Treatise Concerning Scandal (2014) 219-221. This and other back list titles once published by Naphtali Press are available in print on demand reprints at Naphtali Press's Books and Publications Spotlight
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
I agree with the broader point of Durham: we are not to keep company with the excommunicated as if they are not excommunicated. The excommunicated are not to be regarded by the saints as saints but are to be approached evangelistically.
I also agree with the narrower point of Durham, cited above: excommunication does not mean that family members are no longer family members and are not to be treated as family members. My biological brother, parent, or child is still my biological relationship if excommunicated, even as one would still be my biological son if he were to be executed for murder (or imprisoned for robbery or assault).
I agree that excommunication would alter the shape of my relationship with my relative (causing me to regard him as no longer a believer and needing Christ as one outside of Christ). However, he or she would remain my relative and thus such “fraternization” as is fitting for biological brothers would continue. Nothing that the church or state declares causes my biological relation to stop being my biological relation.
Peace,
Alan
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [18] 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. [19] Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. [20] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
1 Corinthians 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
[3] For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. [4] When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
[6] Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? [7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
[9] I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—[10] not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. [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. [12] For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? [13] God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Titus 3:10-11 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, [11] knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
1 Timothy 1:19-20 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
2 Thessalonians 3:13-15 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Excommunication is the OT is seen as being 'cut off'. And that cut off was being put to death.
I don't think it always involved being put to death by execution, although that was one form of excommunication I.e. being "utterly" cut off. Cutting-off could sometimes involve providential divine judgment on the individual(s) or simple barring from the sacrament and other church privileges amd shunning/banishment for a period of time.
Also, since the death penalty could sometimes be replaced with a ransom for the offender's life there may have been in connection with this a period of barring from church proviledges and shunning/banishment.
I come to the above conclusions largely because a survey of the Pentateuch shows that the expressions cutting off or cut off are used more widely than in relation to the presumptuous breaking of the Ten Commandments for which the death penalty could be applied.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Sorry Richard, I was speaking generally. To get the seriousness of the phrase. That is, it is not what many today think as we need to treat them as an unbeliever and we need to bring them into worship, etc. Rather they are to be cut off as apostates still under covenant vows and see the bitterness of their state now. To just say "You are excommunicated." And then treat them still like a Christian in good standing is not what is called for in excommunication. There are of course those things you stated that are true. 
Alan, do you agree with this portion from Durham, which appears would apply to excommunicated family members?:
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."
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."
I am not as up on this as I probably should be. I have a son who has apostatized. I am going to keep seeking him out and bringing truth to him as a Shepherd seeks his lost sheep. I will not sugar coat his condition. I will love him as I always have. I will provide for him when necessary as we are to do for our enemies. And I will sit down and eat with him and have him sit down and eat with me. It is valuable time that I can reinforce the truth of God's Love and that rejecting it has nothing but great peril. Others in the Church should perform what their conscience and God's word tells them to do that he may know he is not a part of the Congregation of the Lamb and that he has forsaken and cut himself off from the only means of life.
I highly recommend Jack Miller's book Come Back, Barbara. His daughter abandoned the faith and she returned to Christ years later. Come Back, Barbara: C. John Miller, Barbara Miller Juliani: 9780875523842: Amazon.com: Books
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F2jD3_lPBIc[/video]
I highly recommend Jack Miller's book Come Back, Barbara. His daughter abandoned the faith and she returned to Christ years later. Come Back, Barbara: C. John Miller, Barbara Miller Juliani: 9780875523842: Amazon.com: Books
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F2jD3_lPBIc[/video]
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Mark:
These are difficult questions. What I mean by this is that specifics can vary widely and thus the applications differ: if I cannot dine with a family member without partaking in his sin that's one thing as opposed to having such a family member at a meal during which I am able to show to him the love of Him who loved us while ungodly (as well as rebuke them in their sin by word or example).
To answer a bit further, I would take Durham to be giving a general principle in #1 (even here he makes it clear that he refers to "unnecessary civil fellowship") that gets qualified in various ways in what follows (I think that #6 makes it clear as well and I agree with Durham here). One of the important qualifications is #5, which, if I rightly understand the OP, is very much to the issue that Tyler Ray raises: what is our carriage to be toward those of our family who are excommunicants?
Should family members under excommunication be dealt with differently than those not members of our family under excommunication? And my answer, and I take it to be Durham's as well, is that family members are still family members and that certain duties are owed to family members that still bind us as family members. Sitting at table together is part of that when possible (having acknowledged that other factors may render it impossible), though such a gathering with an excommunicant present may not be characterized by all the ease and joie de vivre that would otherwise characterize a family gathering.
Peace,
Alan
These are difficult questions. What I mean by this is that specifics can vary widely and thus the applications differ: if I cannot dine with a family member without partaking in his sin that's one thing as opposed to having such a family member at a meal during which I am able to show to him the love of Him who loved us while ungodly (as well as rebuke them in their sin by word or example).
To answer a bit further, I would take Durham to be giving a general principle in #1 (even here he makes it clear that he refers to "unnecessary civil fellowship") that gets qualified in various ways in what follows (I think that #6 makes it clear as well and I agree with Durham here). One of the important qualifications is #5, which, if I rightly understand the OP, is very much to the issue that Tyler Ray raises: what is our carriage to be toward those of our family who are excommunicants?
Should family members under excommunication be dealt with differently than those not members of our family under excommunication? And my answer, and I take it to be Durham's as well, is that family members are still family members and that certain duties are owed to family members that still bind us as family members. Sitting at table together is part of that when possible (having acknowledged that other factors may render it impossible), though such a gathering with an excommunicant present may not be characterized by all the ease and joie de vivre that would otherwise characterize a family gathering.
Peace,
Alan
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks for that, Randy. I too have close family members in this position.
I often remember that our Lord's brothers didn't believe John 7:5, and so we fill up the measure of Christ's sufferings, even in this, and continue to bring them before the throne of grace.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I wouldn't say "when possible", but maybe you are thinking of it in a different way than I. I would rather say "when it is your duty". But one who is excommunicated and moved out of the house, there is not a time when you must for example have them over to your home to eat. There are no special occasions that you would invite them over that is required by the Lord. There is a duty when they are still a part of your household, under your authority as a parent, that you have to provide for them and protect them, but once they are out from your authority the full (or fuller) weight of their excommunication comes upon them. For example, "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." That doesn't mean we cease to pray for them, but that as covenant keepers in Christ we have the obligation and service to our Lord to serve them in the bitterness that the Lord is bringing upon them for their apostasy. To treat them as you would have before they were excommunicated would be to lessen the bitterness (or negate it completely) that the Lord intends for them.
Maybe we agree Alan, and I may be just looking at this from another angle.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Sorry Richard, I was speaking generally. To get the seriousness of the phrase. That is, it is not what many today think as we need to treat them as an unbeliever and we need to bring them into worship, etc. Rather they are to be cut off as apostates still under covenant vows and see the bitterness of their state now. To just say "You are excommunicated." And then treat them still like a Christian in good standing is not what is called for in excommunication. There are of course those things you stated that are true.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Please keep the advice coming. I am trying to lay down guidelines for how to handle a couple of difficult situations in my family currently, and how to guide my wife and children (should this continue long enough for them to grow old enough to be aware of the situation).
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think with any moral question we have to apply simple general principles to complex situations. I agree with Alan though. We need to tred carefully when trying to make these decisions. It is family we're talking about here. None of my four brothers are beleivers but I still relate with them. It may be because I'm Irish but my family is my family and I would die for them. Now I bring up some particular examples for emotion sake because sometimes emotion can curb our intellectual speculations. Sometimes it can force us to rethink what feels wrong but intellectualy looks right.
Because if someone wants to right off their family for not believing or being excommunicated than expect being judged pretty harshly, not that that undermines what has been done. Is unbelief a sin that we should treat more harshly on an individual basis than say a family member on drugs who steals from everyone. But every little compromise you make morally will be noticed. Unbeleif is very serious on a spiritual level but should we right off our family for it? I'm not sure it's so simple as that.
Because if someone wants to right off their family for not believing or being excommunicated than expect being judged pretty harshly, not that that undermines what has been done. Is unbelief a sin that we should treat more harshly on an individual basis than say a family member on drugs who steals from everyone. But every little compromise you make morally will be noticed. Unbeleif is very serious on a spiritual level but should we right off our family for it? I'm not sure it's so simple as that.
- Status
