Sorry, I was called away on an emergency before I had time to enter my entire comments. I had to delete what I intended to post. I will post comments probably this evening. The emergency has been resolved, BTW.
Now, to try to enter what I had originally intended this morning.
@LatchKeyKid in the comments regarding separation of wheat from tares wondered if excommunication was a form of separation of wheat from tares. That prompted me to make a reply on a separate thread in Purgatory.
Three questions come to mind.
First, what is excommunication?
Second, does it have a place in the church today?
Three, are there other forms of discipline that can be practiced in lieu of that step?
I was trained as a pastor in the LCMS; and, consequently had a very conservative mindset drilled into me for some time. Most LCMS congregational constitutions have a clause regards Excommunication. Basically, they follow the outline listed in Matt 18:15 ff
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. NIV
I would add that I, a pastor, could not exercise that option. It would have to be a decision put before the voters assembly, and the decision would have to be unanimous before it would be put into effect.
Checking the constitution of my ELCA congregation, it also has the same provision, but the bishop makes the ultimate decision, though.
Now, I would grant there are many more fundamentalist fellowships that lean into the concept. I once was dealing with a woman from an LDS background. Her husband and two daughters were Lutheran. She was a regular attender of the Lutheran community. She had taken instruction in the Lutheran understanding of Christianity a couple of times prior to me coming in contact with her. Her youngest daughter was about to be confirmed when I approached her asking if she would like to finally become a member. After thinking, and praying about it, she consented. But when she formally joined the Lutheran church, she was immediately excommunicated from the LDS, and her original family shunned her. They literally considered her dead.
In another instance, a certain man from a Four Square background was convicted of child molestation, and that fellowship excommunicated him. The minister of that group came to the Ministerial Alliance and insisted every church in the community bar him. My reply was I technically could not bar him from attending worship, though I could refuse to commune him. He could attend under certain conditions; namely, a trustee would have to be with him at all times, and he could not have any contact with a minor while attending worship.
He never did come to worship with us. However, when a small group of independent Baptists started to rent our church, I noted he was attending their worship. Under duty to warn, I did contact that minister and told him of the man's background. It was up to that minister to decide how to deal with the man.
(Now, I would have to say, this was just at the beginning of the scandal of child molestation within the church. I resigned the ministry shortly after this, so I am not up on current legal responsibilities)
About the only disciplinary action I did do once was dealing with an Elder of the congregation. He had a history of alcohol abuse. His wife had left him, but then he entered recovery and the family was reunited. It appeared they were all going to their respective self-help groups. But then his wife came to me expressing concern he had stopped meeting the conditions they had set up before they reunited. Not long after that, he came to me to resign from the Board of Elders. He explained he had left his family again and was living with another woman. I told him I could not accept the resignation directly; he would have to submit the resignation to the church council. But I did tell him, he was still welcome to attend worship, but I would not commune him only because of the close connections his family had with the congregation--I did not want this to cause a scandal from within. He did not come back.
I was taught excommunication was actually an evangelism tool. When Matt 18 says if someone refuses to amend his ways, to treat him or her as a pagan or tax collector. The church was not to give up on them but to continue to share the good news with them in hopes they regain their faith and amend their ways.
Point is, excommunication was a definite historical practice of the church. Yes, there is no doubt it has been abused, but I ask should it continue to be in the church's tool kit?
The question is simply answered for Presbyterians in Canada in the Book of Forms and has been since 1578, in the form of a single splendid run-on sentence:
3. The “principles and practice of Presbyterian Churches” are set forth particularly
in the Second Book of Discipline, 1578, and acknowledge: that Christ Jesus, our Lord,
as the Head of his Church, has appointed its constitution, laws, ordinances and offices;
that its government and discipline are to be administered according to his will as revealed
in Holy Scripture, by officers chosen for their fitness, and duly set apart to their office;
that these officers meet for deliberation and united action in sessions, presbyteries,
synods, and General Assemblies, and in such order that the organic unity of the church
is maintained in a hierarchy of courts (in contra-distinction to a hierarchy of persons);
the authority of which courts is ministerial and declarative, announcing what Christ has
revealed, and applying his law according to his direction.
We have censure, admonition, rebuke, suspension, removal, and deposition (in the case of elders and ministers). Excommunication ("...the highest censure of the church, imposed only in cases of grave aggravation...") is no longer defined. I don't know the detailed history of the change, but I would think that the concept of restorative justice has been applied.
As an aside, some friends left one of the Christian Reformed denominations over their open support for their gay son, and it was announced that they had "self-excommunicated".
Comments
'Church discipline deleted.'
'Church discipline? Delighted!'
'Church discipline. Deflated.'
@LatchKeyKid in the comments regarding separation of wheat from tares wondered if excommunication was a form of separation of wheat from tares. That prompted me to make a reply on a separate thread in Purgatory.
Three questions come to mind.
First, what is excommunication?
Second, does it have a place in the church today?
Three, are there other forms of discipline that can be practiced in lieu of that step?
I was trained as a pastor in the LCMS; and, consequently had a very conservative mindset drilled into me for some time. Most LCMS congregational constitutions have a clause regards Excommunication. Basically, they follow the outline listed in Matt 18:15 ff
I would add that I, a pastor, could not exercise that option. It would have to be a decision put before the voters assembly, and the decision would have to be unanimous before it would be put into effect.
Checking the constitution of my ELCA congregation, it also has the same provision, but the bishop makes the ultimate decision, though.
Now, I would grant there are many more fundamentalist fellowships that lean into the concept. I once was dealing with a woman from an LDS background. Her husband and two daughters were Lutheran. She was a regular attender of the Lutheran community. She had taken instruction in the Lutheran understanding of Christianity a couple of times prior to me coming in contact with her. Her youngest daughter was about to be confirmed when I approached her asking if she would like to finally become a member. After thinking, and praying about it, she consented. But when she formally joined the Lutheran church, she was immediately excommunicated from the LDS, and her original family shunned her. They literally considered her dead.
In another instance, a certain man from a Four Square background was convicted of child molestation, and that fellowship excommunicated him. The minister of that group came to the Ministerial Alliance and insisted every church in the community bar him. My reply was I technically could not bar him from attending worship, though I could refuse to commune him. He could attend under certain conditions; namely, a trustee would have to be with him at all times, and he could not have any contact with a minor while attending worship.
He never did come to worship with us. However, when a small group of independent Baptists started to rent our church, I noted he was attending their worship. Under duty to warn, I did contact that minister and told him of the man's background. It was up to that minister to decide how to deal with the man.
(Now, I would have to say, this was just at the beginning of the scandal of child molestation within the church. I resigned the ministry shortly after this, so I am not up on current legal responsibilities)
About the only disciplinary action I did do once was dealing with an Elder of the congregation. He had a history of alcohol abuse. His wife had left him, but then he entered recovery and the family was reunited. It appeared they were all going to their respective self-help groups. But then his wife came to me expressing concern he had stopped meeting the conditions they had set up before they reunited. Not long after that, he came to me to resign from the Board of Elders. He explained he had left his family again and was living with another woman. I told him I could not accept the resignation directly; he would have to submit the resignation to the church council. But I did tell him, he was still welcome to attend worship, but I would not commune him only because of the close connections his family had with the congregation--I did not want this to cause a scandal from within. He did not come back.
I was taught excommunication was actually an evangelism tool. When Matt 18 says if someone refuses to amend his ways, to treat him or her as a pagan or tax collector. The church was not to give up on them but to continue to share the good news with them in hopes they regain their faith and amend their ways.
Point is, excommunication was a definite historical practice of the church. Yes, there is no doubt it has been abused, but I ask should it continue to be in the church's tool kit?
3. The “principles and practice of Presbyterian Churches” are set forth particularly
in the Second Book of Discipline, 1578, and acknowledge: that Christ Jesus, our Lord,
as the Head of his Church, has appointed its constitution, laws, ordinances and offices;
that its government and discipline are to be administered according to his will as revealed
in Holy Scripture, by officers chosen for their fitness, and duly set apart to their office;
that these officers meet for deliberation and united action in sessions, presbyteries,
synods, and General Assemblies, and in such order that the organic unity of the church
is maintained in a hierarchy of courts (in contra-distinction to a hierarchy of persons);
the authority of which courts is ministerial and declarative, announcing what Christ has
revealed, and applying his law according to his direction.
We have censure, admonition, rebuke, suspension, removal, and deposition (in the case of elders and ministers). Excommunication ("...the highest censure of the church, imposed only in cases of grave aggravation...") is no longer defined. I don't know the detailed history of the change, but I would think that the concept of restorative justice has been applied.
As an aside, some friends left one of the Christian Reformed denominations over their open support for their gay son, and it was announced that they had "self-excommunicated".