Shunning?

[LadyFlynt]

Is not eating with someone in reference to the Lord's Supper or meals in general?

I would think it would be refering to Communion because of just this...

Excommunication does not remove family relations and responsibilities.

Look at the Amish and their issues. A husband and wife that have not even spoken in years...because one is shunned and the other is still a communing member of the church, yet they cannot eat at their own breakfast table together? And doesn't this break the commands regarding marriage?

 

[KMK]

Charles Hodge on 1 Cor 5:11

"This does not refer to the Lord’s supper, which is never designated as a meal. The meaning is, that we are not to recognize such a man in any way as a Christian, even by eating with him...It is not the act of eating with such persons that is forbidden. Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, but he did not thereby recognize them as his followers. So we may eat with such persons as are here described, provided we do not thereby recognize their Christian character. This is not a command to enforce the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the church, by a denial of all social intercourse with the excommunicated. The command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recognize openly wicked men as Christians. This passage, therefore, affords no plea for the tyranny of Romanists in refusing all the necessaries of life to those whom they cast out of the church."

Charles Hodge

I would agree that there is a difference between sharing a meal and 'having fellowship'. That seems to be the main issue doesn't it? Is excommunication and shunning the same thing?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

"This does not refer to the Lord’s supper, which is never designated as a meal. The meaning is, that we are not to recognize such a man in any way as a Christian, even by eating with him...It is not the act of eating with such persons that is forbidden. Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, but he did not thereby recognize them as his followers. So we may eat with such persons as are here described, provided we do not thereby recognize their Christian character. This is not a command to enforce the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the church, by a denial of all social intercourse with the excommunicated. The command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recognize openly wicked men as Christians. This passage, therefore, affords no plea for the tyranny of Romanists in refusing all the necessaries of life to those whom they cast out of the church."

Charles Hodge

I would agree that there is a difference between sharing a meal and 'having fellowship'. That seems to be the main issue doesn't it? Is excommunication and shunning the same thing?

Hodge has it in a nutshell I think. This "shunning" (didn't know this theological term till this thread) if it is as Hodge and others have qualified it, is the result of someone being excommuncated; one is the sentence, the other how we treat someone so censured.

 

[Davidius]

The fact that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners doesn't prove anything in this situation because Paul said that we are not to shun the immoral people of the world, but the immoral people who claim to be brothers. There's no discrepancy here between what Jesus did and what Paul is teaching. So to take Paul's assertion that we shouldn't even eat with those who call themselves Christians but live like Pagans and say it doesn't really mean not to eat with them is unnecessary. All we get from interpreting this didactic teaching with narrative passages of Jesus eating with sinners is an illumination of the clause that Paul gives regarding not becoming Anabaptists by applying our shunning of immoral professed-Christians to the entire world.

 

[Davidius]

If, as the Bible says, we are to treat an unrepentant professing Christian (after due process of excommunication) as an unbeliever, then it necessitates we do not talk/act like they're Christians. We don't speak with them as if they truly understand the truth.

I understand what you're saying Josh, but it seems like the Hodge quote totally misses the dichotomy that Paul sets up in 1 Cor 5.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 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. 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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

Paul is not saying to treat this excommunicated believer, if they still consider themselves one, like any old unbeliever. He's saying there's one group of people, the immoral people of the world, with whom it is okay to associate with, and a second group of people, immoral professing Christians who have been excommunicated, with whom we are not to associate at all, not even for a meal. I don't see how you are addressing this distinction; it seems like you're blending them together into one and applying the approach Paul says we are to have with the former to both the former and the latter. You brought up the issue of a married couple but I think that problem is mostly pragmatic in nature and needs to be dealt with after first really addressing the dichotomy in this passage. Leave that circumstance out of the question for a moment and show me from the text how I'm misinterpreting Paul's distinction between the two groups.

 

[LadyFlynt]

David, are you saying that a wife should have nothing to do with her excommunicated husband...or husband with his excommunicated wife? Should they eat at separate tables, disband with conjugal relations...or relagate them to the mere act only, without affection? Not shop together or speak with eachother?

 

[Davidius]

So what does the husband in my aforementioned scenario do? Does he break the commandments elsewhere for the sake of this one? God's Word can't contradict itself? Does this husband stop loving his wife as Christ loved the church? Surely sex is more intimate than sharing a meal? Does this man withdraw?

I don't really know. I can't say I've thought about that particular circumstance very much. But I don't think my argument should be thrown out because it seems difficult at the outset to apply to every single situation. We're first and foremost interested in what is true and not "what works" aren't we? If my points are true then there is some way to reconcile them with other parts of the bible, perhaps 1 Cor 7 that talks about marriages that are "divided" by faith.

 

[Davidius]

David, are you saying that a wife should have nothing to do with her excommunicated husband...or husband with his excommunicated wife? Should they eat at separate tables, disband with conjugal relations...or relagate them to the mere act only, without affection? Not shop together or speak with eachother?

Colleen,

No, I'm just trying to put theology before practice and not put "what seems to work" over what's true. When these kinds of questions come up it sounds like the Arminian who says "well obviously God can't be absolutely sovereign because if so then A, B, and C must be true so no matter what the text says I'm going to reject it because I don't like how it pans out in the real world."

As I told Josh, I haven't thought through every single implication of the text of 1 Cor 5 (and others) that clearly say we are not to associate with those who call themselves believers but live like pagans. But neither you nor Josh have actually responded to my comments on the passage; all you've done is brought up circumstances that seem to contradict my interpretation. I would prefer it if you would show me why the dichotomy Paul seems to me to be setting up is different from how I'm taking it.

 

[Davidius]

The difference is, David, that the Arminian is appealing merely to vain philosophy and irrationalism. I'm talking about taking the Scriptures as a whole. God's Word cannot contradict itself, right? Of course not. Thus, it follows, we can't take just this little tidbit from Paul and not take in all the implications of the same thing found in the rest of Scripture...which is why I brought up the scenario of a man and wife.

Have you seen Andrew's quote from the First Scottish Book of Discipline on the first page of this thread? It shares my understanding of how the body of Christ in general should relate to the individual in question but adds a clause stating that normal relations within the family are acceptable.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Agreeing with Josh...

Several reasons why I ask for a response on the husband/wife issue...

1) as mentioned by Josh...scripture does not contradict itself
2) this is a real situation in many homes amoung the culture I'm exposed to. It DOES happen.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Have you seen Andrew's quote from the First Scottish Book of Discipline on the first page of this thread? It shares my understanding of how the body of Christ in general should relate to the individual in question but adds a clause stating that normal relations within the family are acceptable.

This is what I was wanting to know...do you agree to normal relations within the family being acceptable? You're previous posts indicated that you didn't...thus why I was asking clarification.

 

[Davidius]

Agreeing with Josh...

Several reasons why I ask for a response on the husband/wife issue...

1) as mentioned by Josh...scripture does not contradict itself
2) this is a real situation in many homes amoung the culture I'm exposed to. It DOES happen.

And I understand the importance of the issue. Have you seen Andrew's quotation from the First Scottish Book of Discipline on the first page of the thread? It also has the view that the body of Christ should not associate with the person at all but that it's okay for family members to have normal relations.

 

[LadyFlynt]

We cross-posted...read right above what you posted

 

[Davidius]

This is what I was wanting to know...do you agree to normal relations within the family being acceptable? You're previous posts indicated that you didn't...thus why I was asking clarification.

Oops, I didn't see this post before I had written my other one!

I didn't mean to sound, in my other posts, like I thought husbands should move out if their wives are under discipline. I was just saying that I hadn't considered every single circumstance and application. I'm more than willing to accept the stance that Andrew quoted.

 

[LadyFlynt]

:thumbsup: thank you

 

[Davidius]

:thumbsup: thank you

 

[Davidius]

I think the difference is we can be a little more cordial to the one who's never been in the Church, and who is not in danger of apostasy (Heb 6, et al), because this particular lost man is not in the same vein as the one who was a Church member, proclaimed a love for Christ, then has a blatant rebellion in which they're basically spitting on the cause of Christ.

Amen, I agree. The whole point is that we're supposed to deal differently with people who have never been in the Church and those who have apostatized. This is the dichotomy I've been trying to address from the beginning. I suppose the question is, "how much differently?"

That being said, there's hope for the worst of sinners. Which is the focus of discipline...to restore.

Absolutely! And this is what can be difficult. Many people have had bad experiences with church discipline because an unloving attitude was taken towards the excommunicated person and it was seen purely as a form of punishment instead of as a means for restoration.
[bible]2 Thessalonians 3:13-15[/bible]


Doh! I should really be doing my homework right now.

 

[Redaimie]

Thanks for all your responses.

I think if I'm understanding correctly shunning should "only" be done in the case where proper discipline has been applied "excommunication". So if someone is shunned without being excommunicated it would not be biblical.

The "First Scottish Book of Discipline" quote was very helpful.

 

[shelly]

to be shunned

I am fascinated with the whole process by which a church decides to shun someone and then forces everyone else to ignore you.

Those who have been shunned (sorry if impolite) would you be willing to share how the nuts and bolts unfolding took place.

What processes must a church do in order to do this? A church bulletin, unofficial gossip, a sermon, a business meeting? And afterwards, what happens if another church member actually talks to you or calls you on the phone?

What sorts of things do they say to you? Instead of "I'll be praying for you" do they say, "Get thee behind me.." or "repent soon." What sorts of shunning etiquette exists and how does this affect social intercourse?

Sometimes it's a formal church discipline meeting, other times its a men's meeting, Sunday school or business meeting. Most often it's part of the sermon. "They went out from us because they were not of us." I have heard that verse so often when we were being told who the next victim was that if I hear or think of that verse it serves as a flashback to those years.

The "pastor" tells the men not to speak to the one being shunned. Of course they hand down the directive to their wives and if anyone goes against it they do so in secret and often the guilt of speaking with the shunned one overcomes them and they confess to the "pastor" every word spoken.

If someone sees you in the parking lot of Wal-mart or anywhere else and they haven't gone in yet they might park on the other side of the parking lot and go in the opposite door; more often than not you will see them look straight ahead and continue out of the parking lot even if they had just parked.

If someone sees you in the store they will not answer you when you speak. They will look straight ahead or through you. They will not respond to your toddlers and kindergarten age children when they tug on their clothes to talk to them. You learn to protect your children by checking the parking lot and choosing a different shopping day and stores. You learn it's better to leave a full buggy than to shop in a small store with someone who is shunning you if your children are with you.

You move.

Someday when your oldest is 12 and keeps asking as he has since he was 4, "Why don't we see Uncle Ben anymore. We don't live that far away."; you answer the question, and it still hurts. Only our oldest knows some of what happened and why we left and why we rarely see his aunt and uncle and cousins.
It's been eight and a half years.

The etiquette is do what you're told or you're next. To protect yourself you practice reverse shunning and avoid everyone. You don't know if the one coming to talk to you in secret is a spy or actually wants to discuss doctrinal problems in the church. One learns the hard way not to talk to anyone who hasn't already left or been told to leave the church. Shunning hurts. I don't think I could ever practice excommunication without some serious teaching on it.

How's that for an inside look?

I would like to know how shunning and excommunication are supposed to be different. If you treat someone as an unbeliever; then what type of unbeliever? I treat someone different if they are hostile to the gospel rather than just questioning or ignorant.

shelly

 

[KMK]

I would say 'rarely' it is part of a church discipline meeting. It is usual unofficial gossip.

BTW, 1 Cor 5:9. "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators..."

'to company with': sunanamignumi: Thayer's says, "Be intimate with"

Maybe that would explain Hodge's point of view.

 

[Davidius]

I would say 'rarely' it is part of a church discipline meeting. It is usual unofficial gossip.

BTW, 1 Cor 5:9. "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators..."

'to company with': sunanamignumi: Thayer's says, "Be intimate with"

Maybe that would explain Hodge's point of view.

No matter how you interpret the meaning of "companying" with someone, you have to remember that Paul qualifies what he's saying by adding that we are not even to eat with the person. Sharing a meal is a very basic form of fellowship.