Unofficial Excommunication

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Freshman
Hello friends and brethren. I was just wondering, is there such a thing "biblically" as unofficial excommunication? If so, what's the fitting criteria for it? Thanks.

Grace & peace,
You can actually excommunicate yourself by not attending church for an extended period of time and fellowshipping with the body of believers within it (this is, of course, not factoring in legitimate reasons like extended hospitalizations and such).

It may not be a formal process, and the church may not be kicking you out, but the ramifications of both are almost the exact same.
Not sure what this term might be describing.

There is "formal" and "informal" discipline- the former includes such things as suspension from the Lord's Supper (this is temporary), the latter includes such things as a non-process admonition.

Excommunication means being removed from visible identification with the Body of Christ. This is not something one does to themselves in any ordinary use of that term.

It is a last resort, most drastic form that ordinarily only follows a sustained period of impenitence for sin.
You mentioned that one could unofficially excommunicate self, I am more so wondering if the scripture presents a congregation doing so towards an individual "unofficially". I trust you would hold that excommunication has the following fundamental meaning:To cut off from communion with a church or exclude from the sacraments of a church by ecclesiastical sentence.If so, is it possible for a congregation (especially those in office) to do so without publicly or officially declaring such before the congregation?

I can't find it in my Bible, but it happens all the time in real life.

Basically, the pastor or some other leader just tells a member to get lost, usually with no second chance, no recourse, no opportunity to repent, etc. Sometimes this involves a real sin. Other times it's like what we're seeing in the "Purpose-Driven" thread--for whatever reason the person is seen as a threat or obstacle. Even if no direct action is taken, the situation is basically made untenable for them and it's made clear they are not wanted. I don't know if this is what Brock is getting at or not.
You are touching greatly on an occurrence I am aware of, thus my post.
1 Corinthians 5:11 says: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. Here the sins which stand as grounds for excommunication are plain and the action that is to be taken is to be out in the open. In context of this, I know some individuals of good reputation in the faith who left a reformed congregation and were afterwards unofficially placed in the very first portion of v11 of 1Cor5 (But now I have written unto you not to keep company...). I am for the most part trying to see where this fits in scripture (especially the unofficial behind the scenes dealings). These folks were not guilty of the iniquity that follows in this text, they simply left the congregation due to differences which are non salvific. Is there a problem with this?

Not open for further replies.