2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/10

xcommunication

in the Home

Reverend ltVayne Rogers

- P1 0'V'idence resbyterian

Church RPCUS

Richard

Ganz in

his

Our purpose in

this

study

book,

20 Controversies That is

not,

however, to

address

Almost

Killed A

Church

- Paul's

the

biblical bas is for church

Counsel

to

the Corinthians

and the Church

Today,

wrote concerning I Cor. 5,

that many

churches are

like

the Corinthians,

they

pat

themselves

on the back

for

being a great

church

..but

they

do

nothing about

sin. And,

if a minister or elders try to

practice church discipline,

they

may find themselves

put

out

of

the

church.

He reminds us

that

Jonathan

Edwards, one of

the most

influential preachers

since

John

Calvin, was expelled

from

his

church

by a vote of

231-23 for saying that people

who were involved in open,

untepentant sin could

not

take

the

Lord's Supper. Edwards

said

there was 'going

to

be discipline

for sin.

John

Calvin was also

thrown out of Geneva

when

he tried

to

practice church

discipline. Ganz observes,

If

Jonathan

Edwards and

John Calvin can be thrown

out

of their churches, how

many

pastors

a ue safe? l

discipline, Mat. 18, I Cor. 5,

the

various forms

or

degrees

of church discipline,

or the

purposes' of church discipline.

All of

these

have been

sufficiently set forth in Books

of Church Order or

the

Forms

of

Government

of various

Reformed and

Presbyterian

denomiriations. Our concern

in this study is the application

of excommunication by

the

church in

the

home. How

are

those who have been

excommunicated by the

church

to be treated and

regarded by other members of

their family, especially

those

who stil l live

in

the home?

I have been surprised at

the

scarcity of directions

and applications of

excommunication

in the

family context. Perhaps that is

because it is assumed that

what

is

required

on

the

ecclesiastical

level, do

not

associate with,

do not

eat

with, purge

the

immoral person from

your

midst, 1 Cor. 5:9, 11, 13, is

commonly

understood

to apply

to

the

home as well. From my

experience, I doubt this is so,

especially

since

Christians

do not even agree on how to

apply excommunication on

the ecclesiastical level, much

less the home. Therefore,

I would like to pffer some

exposition

and

application

of excommunication to

the covenant home.

Let me add

that

this

is no mere academic interest

on my

part.

I, as a pastor and

family member, have had to

deal with this on a personal

level, giving direction and

counsel both to the

church

and

to families with regard

to

excommunications

in

their family. Within

my

own

extended family, I have had

to address and deal with this

subject on at least three, nay,

four, occasions. This is a search

for the biblical and godly

practice of

church

discipline

with the hope and faith that

God will bless our faithful

practice to the repentance

The

Gotlnsel of GhalcedO lL


2/10

and re storation of those who,

not only in our churches,

but

also

in our

falnilies, have

been exconllnunicated.

I feel I n1ust

state

for

the

record that eXCOllllnUllication,

as a form of discipline, the

most extrelne form, is a loving

aot. Vvh01n the Lord loves

he disciplines," Heb. 12:6,

Provo 3:12.

I t

shows how far

Christians have departed

from biblical principles

that

they cannot

and

do

not regard discipline and

excommunication as an act of

love.

It

is

not

only

an

act

of

love for

the

sinning brother,

but it

is

an act

of love for

the

Christ, who said,

If

you love

me keep Iny conllnandments,"

John

14:15. Vve love Hiln, His

conllnandnlents, His nalne,

His holiness, which have been

dragged into

the

Inud by

the

professing

and

sinning brother.

There are times when we

must decide between

Christ

and

even a fatnily Inember.

Jesus said, "Do not

think

that I catne to bring peace on

earth. I did not con1e to bring

peace

but

a sword. For I have

come to 'set a Inan against h'is

father, a daughter against

her

mother, and a daughter-in-law

against

her

n10ther-in-lav/;

and 'a man's enelnies will be

those of his own household."

Matthew 10:34-36. (See also

Luke

12:49-53).

"'Vhoever

does the will of God,

he

is

my brother,

and

sister, and

mother," Mark 3:35. Discipline,

exconllnunication, is also an

act

of love for

the

church,

His bride, Eph. 5:25-27. It

is

an

aCt of love for a sinful

and dying world as well. By

discipline we delnonstrat e

the sinfulness of sin

and

its

Natio ns

Ghrist's

isciples

judglnent

and that outside

of Christ there is no hope.

How

then

should we apply

exconllnunication

in the

falnily

context?

The

Bible clearly

speaks of exconll11unication,

Mat. 18, I Cor. 5.

It naturally

does so in the eoclesiastical

context. Jesus said concerning

the

brother who will

not

listen to one, to two

or

three,

or to

the

church, Let hinl

be

to you as a Gentile and

a

tax

collector," Mat. 18:15.

Paul wrote to

the Corinthians

conoerning

the

l11an

who was

guilty of sexual inll11orality,

Let hin1 who has done this

be

removed frol11 among you," I

Cor. 5:2; "deliver

this

l11an to

Satan for the destruction of the

flesh, so

that

his spirit

l11ay be

saved

in

the day of

the

Lord,"

vs. 5; "Do not associate

vdth

sexually inll110ral people ...

with anyone who bears

the

nat11e of brother if he is guilty of

sexual

inllnorality

or

greed, ....

not

even to eat with such a

one; .... Purge the evil person

fr0111 at110ng you," 5:9, 11, 13.

It

is one thing

to

speak

of exconllnunication

in the

context of church relationships,

not to "eat with"

S0111eone

who

has been exconll11unicated, but

what if the exconll11unicated

one is a husband, a wife, a

father

or

n10ther?

'Vhat

if

they

are a child, a son or a daughter?

How is exconll11unication to

be applied in the h01ne? To be

sure, that is often

not

an issue

because the

exconll11unicated

person is often

exconll11unicated for leaving

their

wife, husband, fal11ily,

and

the

church,

and they are no

longer

in

the h01ne

or

have any

Exco?1t1Jl.unication in the 110nw

desire

to oontinue in

fellowship

with

the

church.

There are

some cirCUlnstanoes where

Christians l11ay work with

exconll11unioated

l11el11bers,

however, or

be

in other sooial

oontexts

and they nlust

consider

the il11plioations and

application of exconllllunication

in

that situation. However, .

there are son1e

circlllnstanoes

where

an

exconll11unicated

person still lives at h0111e.

Vve

hear

several responses

fron1

Christians

conoerning

exconllllunioation,

both in the

ecclesiastical as well as

the

fal11ilial context.

S0111e assert

that when

Jesus

said

we

are

to

regard excollln1unicated

people

as Gentiles and tax oolleotors,

since

Jesus ate and drank

with

sinners, we, therefore,

l11ay eat

with

them, at

least

to

evangelize

then1. Others

state

that not

eating

with

then1 is lil11ited to

the Lord's Supper, therefore,

exconll11unication does

not

apply to the social or fal11ily

context. Outside

the

worship of

the

church we l11ay, therefore,

eat and

drink with

thel11. Sonle

even suggest that as long as we

don't eat with those who have

been exconu11unicated, ,ve can

still socialize with thel11, get

together

to play golf, go fishing,

go on vacation together, etc.

Bet,veen

lunch

and supper,

therefore,

or

after

supper,

we can engage in normal

social activities with

thel11

and

talk

a

bout

the weather,

the

world, work, sports, etc.,

just don't eat with them

How should we, in the

light of

such

considerations

and conll11ents, relate to

those in our fal11ily who have


3/10

Excom municat ion

in

the Home

lovingly

and

biblically been

excommunicated that their

souls

may be

saved

in

the

day of

our

Lord, I Cor. 5:5?

1

Not eating with

excommunicated persons

applies to

the

personal as

well as the ecclesiastical

relationship. What is said

on

the

ecclesiastical level

concerning

excommunication

applies on the personal, social,

and family level. Indeed, the

Bible does not make the

kind

of distinction we often make

between

church and

family

in

this

case. There are certainly

biblical distinctions between

the responsibilities and

authority of

the

home, family,

and church which are to

be

recognized and observed, but,

fundamentally, the Christian

is not

to

have fellowship

with

an

excommunicated

person regardless of his

family relationship.

Dr. George Knight,

OPC Minister and professor

at

Greenville Theological

Seminary, in a paper

on

Biblical

Church Discipline, wrote,

There must be

a

common

mind that the unrepentant

sin

needs to

break

the fellowship to

such

an

extent

(and Paul goes

on

to say this)

that it

involves

also

not

eating with them 1

Cor. 5:11),

because

that

is

the

closest

and most intimate

fellowship that we experience

in

our

social interrelationships

-- so close

and

so

intimate

and

so significant that for

Christians

it's usually preceded,

sometimes followed, by a word

of grace. Some exegetes write

that this ('do not eat with')

means that we should

not

allow

him

to the Lord's Supper.

He

can no longer commune as a

fellowshipping member of the

church. Certainly,

that

would

be

included. But is

that

what

Paul is speaking about? Is it

not

a further explication of

what it means

not

to associate

with him, explication which

is

set in the context in

which

Paul relates

this

association

to

the

social

intercourse

with pagan neighbors? It is

in

that

arena,

not

that of the

church's gathering for worship,

but

of social intercourse.

And

therefore,

the

eating

must

be taken in the same

arena. Christians may and

do eat with a pagan, 1 Cor.

5:10,

but

they should

not eat

with this

unrepentant one

who claims to be a brother

and is being disciplined.

Knight

continues,

Finally,

with reference to the offender,

we have the words of 2 Thess.

3:14,

If

anyone

does

not

obey

our instruction in this letter,

take

special

note

of him. Do

not

associate with

him, in

order

that he may feel ashamed.'

What

should

he feel ashamed

of? His

sin

and its

consequence

for

him,

namely, to be excluded

from

the

fellowship of God's

people. If the church fails to

discipline

an unrepentant

sinner, he will not

experience

the

disciplinary

action

which

God

has

ordained to bring

about the result. He may not,

therefore, repent, and he

may

not, therefore, be brQught back

into

the fellowship of God and

His people. It is

the

church's

responsibility to see that he

feels that

shame,

the shame on

the

horizontal

level of excluding

him

from the fellowship of

God's people

so

that

he may

be brought to shame on the

vertical level and be ashamed

of his sin before God. To use

the

language of the Confession,

the

censure

is 'necessary'

to accomplish this end.

On I Cor. 5:9 and 11

John Calvin wrote:

... He reminds the

Corinthians of what he

had

already enjoined upon them -

that they

should refrain from

intercourse

with the wicked.

For

the

word

rendered

to keep

company with, means to be

on

terms

of familiarity with

anyone,

and to be'in habits of

close

intimacy

with

him

...

In short, then, he prohibits

the Corinthians

from holding

intercourse

with those

who, while professing to be

believers, do, nevertheless, live

wickedly and to the dishonor

of God.

'Let

all

that

wish to

be reckoned brethren, either

live holily and becomingly,

or

be

excommunicated

from the society,of the

pious, and let all the good

refrain from intercourse and

familiarity with them .. .

What

he means, then, is

this: If anyone is reckoned a

brother among you,

and

at the

same time

leads a wicked life,

and such as is unbecoming

a Christian, keep aloof from

his

society.' In short, being

called a brother, means here a

false profession, which has no

corresponding reality ...With

such an one not

even to take

food.

In the

first place, we must

ascertain

whether he

addresses

here

the whole Church, or

The Counsel

q

Ghalcedon


4/10

merely individuals. I answer,

that

this is said, indeed, to

individuals, but,

at

the same

time,

it

is connected with their

discipline in con1n10n; for the

power of exconlnlunicating is

not allowed to any individual

member, but to the entire body.

When, therefore,

the

Church

has exconll11unicated anyone,

no believer ought to receive

him into ternlS of intimacy

with him; otherwise the

authority of the Church would

be brought into contempt,

if each individual were

at

liberty to

ad111it

to his table

those who have been excluded

from the table of

the

Lord ....

By

partaking

of food here, is

meant either living together, or

familiar association

in

n1eals.

.... What Paul

means

is, that,

in so far as it is in

our

power,

we are to shun the society of

those Wh0111 the Church has

cut off fr0111

her

c0111munion.

2.

The conln1and not

eat

with is

not

limited to

the act

of not participating in a meal

with then1.

t

includes social

association

and

fellowship.

To

not eat with is

l110re

than not

partaking of food with someone.

The key to understanding

the con1111and of verse (1 Oor.

5) 9 according to the Wycliffe

Bible Oon1111entary, 'is the

verb

to

c0111pany

with'

(vv.

9, 11), which n1eans literally

to n1ix

up

together with (of.

Arndt and Gingrich, Greek

English Lexicon, p. 792). The

thought is that of familiar

fellowship. The apostle knew

that sonle fellowship with

the world USt

take

place

in the

daily pursuits

of

life.

However, the brother under

the NaUons

Ghrist s Disciples

discipline was to be denied

fellowship, and particularly

were the believers not to eat

with such an one,

the

nlost

obvious act of fellowship. 2

On this passage, Matthew

Henry wrote, ... And therefore

on this occasion

he

tells

them

that i

any nlan called

a brother,

anyone

professing

Christianity,

and

being a

nlember of a Ohris tian church,

were a fornicator, or covetous,

or an idolater, or a railer,

that

they

should not keep c0111pany

with hin1,

nor

so

111uch

as

eat

with

such

a one. They were to

avoid all fat11iliarity with

hit11;

they were to have no con1n1erce

with hin1; they were to have

no

con1111erce

with hit11: but,

that

they

nlight shame hit11,

and bring hin1 to repentance,

must disclait11 and shun

hit11.

Note, Henry continues,

Christians are to avoid the

fa111iliar

conversation of

fellow-Christians that are

notoriously wicked,

and

under

just

censure

for

their

flagitious

practices. Such disgrace the

Christian nanle. They

111ay

call

themselves brethren in Christ,

but they

are not

Christian

brethren. They are only

it

conlpanions for the brethren in

iniquity; and to such c0111pany

they should be left, till

they

nlend

their

ways

and

doings.

Matthew Henry, again,

states, Every Christian is

bound to

judge

the111

unfit

for conll11union and fa111i1iar

converse. They are to

be

punished, by having this n1at-k

of disgrace

put

upon the111,

that they

111ay

be

sha111ed,

and, i possible, reclait11ed

EXc01nntu nication in

the

Bonte

thereby:

and

the l110re because

the

sins of

such nluch

l110re

dishonor God than

the sins

of the openly wicked and

profane can do. The

church

therefore is obliged to clear

herself

fr0111

all

confederacy

with

the111,

or

connivance at

the111, and to bear testin10ny

against

their

wicked practices.

Note,

though the

church

has

nothing to do with those

Without, it

111USt

endeavor

to

keep clear of the guilt and

reproach of

those

within.

The New Bible Con1111entary3

on

I Cor. 5:11,13

states

..

they are to withdraw fr0111

any

Christian

who is sexually

it11moral. ... Table fellowship was

prohibited ....

the

con11nunity

is to expel the inll110ral person

fr0111

their 1nidst, a point

Paul e111phasizes by citing Dt.

17:7.

The

author concludes

with these words,

The ease

with which the present

day

church

often

passes

judgn1ent

on the ethical

or

structural

111isconduct of the outside

con1111unity is at tit11es 111atched

only by its reluctance to

take action to re1nedy

the

ethical

conduct

of its own

111embers. Vve have reversed

Paul's order of things.

Eating with S0111eone was

and

is l110re

than

partaking

of a meal

with

S0111eone.

It

is

an

expression of social

and personal friendship,

fellowship, and acceptance.

Thus,

not eating

with

S0111e0l1e

is nluch broader

than

n1erely

avoiding

or

denying dinner

con1panionship. Paul does not

only say do not eat with

but

have no association with. As

DaVid

Garland

writes

in

his

11


5/10

Excommunication in the Home

commentary on I Corinthians

5, Eating together

connoted

more than friendliness in

ancient

culture;

it

created

a

social bond. When Christians

ate together, it reinforced

and

confirmed the solidarity

established by their

shared

confess ion of faith

in

Christ.

Refusing to

eat

with fellow

Christians

guilty of

such

acts

breaks all social ties

with

them

as

well as excludes

them

from the Lord's Supper.

This

exclusion may

seem

harsh

and intolerant, a reversion

to

the narrow

separatism of

the

Pharisees,

but

Christians

who

are no different morally

from unbelievers blur the

clear

distinctions between

the church

and the

world

and

destroy

their

testimony

to

God's transforming

power in their lives." 4

Jay Adams, in his

Handbook of Church Discipline,

helps

us

to apply this:5 The

congregation may no longer

fellowship with him as

though

nothing were wrong. They are

told, 'Don't mix,

or

mingle, with

him' 2 Thessalonians

3:

14; 1

Corinthians

5:9, 11 ),'withdraw

from him' 1 Thess. 3:6; the

word translated 'Withdraw,'

means 'stand aloof; keep away

from'), and 'don't eat' with

him,

1 Corinthians 5:11. All

these

commands

(they

are not

good advice,.but commands)

say

one and the same thing,

the congregation 'must

regard

the

so-called

brother

1 Cor. 5:11) 'as a brother' 2

Thessalonians 3: 15),

but as

one whose status is

in

question.

(There IS some doubt about

whether

he is really a brother,

because he fails to heed the

admonition of

the brethren

and the authority of Christ

exercised by His officers

in

the

church;

by

the

time

the

entire

congregation begins its task, he

has gone very far in his willful

disobedience

and

contumacy.)

"But what does withdrawal

mean?

t

means

that if John

calls Bill and suggests that

they

playa

round

of golf on

Monday, Bill will reply by

saying

something

like this:

"John, there's nothing I'd rather

do. But

there

is a problem.

You

are

under

the

discipline

of the church and have not

repented. I would be happy

to spend that, time with you

on Monday talking about

the

problem instead." Martha

asks Jill to go shopping with

her. Her reply is

the

same.

"Not

to eat means

two

things, according to Adams:

(1). That normal fellowship is

broken. Eating with another,

in biblical times, was the

sign of fellowship; 2)

That

the offender is forbidden to

partake of the Lotd's Supper

because, according to I

Corinthians 10:16-17, partaking

is "communion"

or

fellowship;

the very thing prohibited

at

stage 4

If he

refuses to

heed the officers and

their

admonitions , Paill says that

he must

be

removed from

table fellowship

and

all

other

forms of

normal

fellowship in

order

to

shame him

into

repentance. 2Thess 3.14."6

In his

commentary on

I II

Corinthians, Adams puts it this

way, "Indeed, I was speaking

particularly about mingling

with 'so-called' Christians

who are living immorally'

(vs. 11) .... Normal relations,

'mingling,' are not proper.

Eating, sh0pping together,

playing golf, etc., as

though

nothing were the matter, should

be

out of the question."7

What

about the

fact that

Jesus ate and drank with

publicans and sinners? We are

told that we are to

treat

them as

you would any other unbeliever

when they

are

"removed from

the

midst ." How do we treat

unbelievers? We evangelize

them 8 However, one of the

current ways of "evangelizing"

unbelievers is eating with them,

taking

them

out

to lunch. So,

should we

not eat

with them,

take them out to lunch,

in

order

to to evangelize them?

This is

to

read into

the'

text

or

excommunication a

contemporary

practice

and

approach

that

would not have

been understood or practiced in

biblical days. When Jesus said

to treat them as Gentiles and

tax

collectors" he was saying

to treat them as people you

do not have fellowship with,

do not associate with, identify

with. If,

after

reading 1 Cor. 5

you'continue to

chapter

6

and

further, you'will get a sense

of

the

moral gulf between

believers and unbelievers

and

why

there

can

be

no

fellowship with "unbelievers."

1

Corinthians

6:9-11, "Do you

not know that

the

unrighteous

will not inherit the kingdom

of God? Do not be deceived.

Neither fornicators,nor

idolaters, nor adulterers, nor

homosexuals,

nor

sodomites,

10 nor thieves, nor covetous,

The ounsel Qf halcedon


6/10

110r drunkards, nor revilers,

nor

extortioners will

inherit

the

kingdotll of God. 11 And

suoh were SOll1e of you. But

you were washed,

but

you

were sanotified,

but

you were

justified in the nanle of the

Lord Jesus and by

the

Spirit of

our God."

1 Corinthians 6 : 1 5 ~ 1 6 HDo

you

not

know

that

your bodies

are

nlenlbers of Christ? Shall

I

then

take the 111enlbers

of Christ and make thenl

111embers of a harlot? Certainly

not

Or

do you

not

know

that

he who is joined to a harlot is

one body with her? For the

two," He says, "shall beOotlle

one flesh.'"

1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee

sexual inlnl0rality. Every sin

that a 111an does is outside

the

body,

but

he who Ootllnlits

sexual inlnl0rality sins against

his own body."

2

Corinthians

6:14-18,

Do

not be

unequally yoked

together with unbelievers.

For

what

fellowship

has

righteousness with lawlessness?

And

what

oonlnlunion

has

light with darkness? And what

aooord has

Christ

with Belial?

Or

what part has a believer

with

an

unbeliever? And what

agreelllent has the temple of

God with idols? For you

are

the telllple of the living God.

As

God

has said: 'I will dwell in

thenl And walk atllong thenl.

I will be

their

God, And

they

shall

be My

people.' Therefore

'Conle out frotll atllong thetll

And be separate, says the Lord.

Do not

touoh what is unolean,

And I will reoeive you.' 'I will

be a Father to you, And you

the Nations Christ s Disoiples

shall be

My

sons and daughters,

Says the Lord Ahllighty.'"

The issue in Mat. 18

and

I Cor. 5 is a totally different

oontext and oonoern

than

Jesus' eating

with

sinners

(Mat. 11:19, Luke 15:2). Sinlon

Kistemaker,

in

his oonl111ent(lxy

on

I Corinthians states, In an

Eastern sooiety, established

nonllS of hospitality

111ight

not

be broken. To not offer food

to a relative,

an

aoquaintanoe,

a friend, or a guest oould be

interpreted

as a declaration of

war.

The

parable of

the

friend

at

111idnight indioates

that

a

host would be willing to inour

his neighbor's displeasure in

an

effort to obtain food for

his guest (Luke 11:5-8).

In

a reversal of the established

nornlS, Jesus often ate with tax

oolleotors and

sinners and

was

oalled their friend (Matt. 11:19;

Luke 15:2)-and

soandalized

the religious leaders. Then,

what

is

the point

of Paul's

injunotion ("do

not

eat with

suoh a one," 1 Cor. 5:11)?

The 111atter oonoerns ohuroh

disoipline.

Jesus instruoted

his

followers that his presoribed

prooedure for exoonl111unioation

nlight result in a ootllplete

separation of the

Christian

OOnl1l1Unity and the offending

sinner

(Matt. 18:17).

The sinner

is a blot on

the

integrity of the

ohuroh (Ootllpare II Peter 2:13;

Jude 12). Suoh a sinner must

be excluded fr0111

Christian

fellowship. Then he

111ay

learn

to see the error of his way,

repent, and

return

to the faith

(ootl1pare II Thess. 3:14-15)."9

The eXootlllllunioated, Paul

says, are

to be

taken away

frotll your

111idst,

I Cor. 5:2,

"delivered over to Satan, 5;5,

EXCOl1ununioation

in the J lo1ne

expelled fr0111 your 111idst,"5:13.

In 1 Corinthians 5:13, Paul

cites, or

at

lease alludes to one

of

the

passages

in

Deuteron0111Y,

"expel

the

wioked

an fr0111

al110ng

you." Paul's concluding

statement,

"Expel

the

evil

an frotll anl0ng you," is a

line frotll the Soriptures, the

OT. The

text

with a slight

variation appears repeatedly

in Deuteron0111Y: Deut. 17:7,

19.19, 21.21, 22.24, 24.7. Paul

applies in the ecclesiastical

context what DeuterononlY

applied

in the judicial or

civil

context. The

unrepentant

brother

should be excluded

frotll the fellowship of God

i

he oonl111its a high-handed

or

unrepentant sin. The language

Paul uses to describe

the

action

they should take is graphic and

specifio: "expel" in verse 13,

not associate with"

in verse

9;

and put out of your fellowship"

in verse 2. In the words of

George Knight, "He's

describing

an

aotion that breaks fellowship

with the

unrepentant brother

which is 1110re than a conlnl0n

and passing or incidental

social intercourse with

people in

the

public arena."

Paul is applying Deut. 17:7

and "expelling ..." to

the

ecclesiastical context. The

Corinthians were to take

deoisive action. Paul

uses and

applies a phrase frotll the OT

whioh

111eant

to

put

to death.

Vve

are

to

practice

on the

ecolesiastical

and

personal

level

what

the civillllagistrate

praotices on

the

judicial level;

we are

to treat

thenl as though

dead. Note, the words of

the

father of the prodigal

son

in

Luke 15:24, "For this Illy son

Continued

on

age

16

13


7/10

xcommunication in the orne

was dead, and is alive again.

As long

as

he was away,

he

was

dead; now that

he

has

repented

and

returned he

is alive again.

Significantly,

John

Calvin,

on this verse, differed with

Chrysostom.

Chrysostom,

says Calvin, compares

the rigor of

the

law with

the

mildness

of

the

gospel,

inasmuch as Paul was satisfied

with

excommunication in the

case

of

an

offense for which

the

law

required

the

punishment

of

death.

Calvin responds, But

for this there is no just ground.

For Paul is not

here

addressing

judges that

are armed

with

the sword; but an tl-narmed

multitude

that

was allowed

merely to make use of brotherly

correction; In

other

words,

in a Christian state,

he

would

be put to death; however, the

extent of the authority of the

church is excommunication.

3 .The

excommunicated person

is to be purged, banished,

from

the

fellowship of the

people

of God, I Cor. 5:13.

Anthony Thiselton on 5:13, '

writes: The double use of

the

Greek

word 'ex'

or

'ek'

requires

a strong word

such

as banish. ,10 Matthew Henry

stated, Therefore put away

from among

yourselves that

wicked

person,

v.

13. Cast him

out of

your

fellowship, and

avoid his conversation. ll

The

Jamieson, Fausset,

Brown (JFB) Critical

Commentary,

on I Cor.

5:13

states,

put away

from among yourselves

that wicked -Sentence of

excommunication in

language

taken from Deut. 24:7.

12

C. S. Keener

in

the IVP Bible

Background Commentary,

wrote

on

I Cor 5:13, The Old

Testament

often

commanded

God's people to purge evildoers

from among

their

ranks,

normally

by

execution (Deut

13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,

24; 24:7). Otherwise, the

unrepentant

offender could

remove God's blessing from

the

whole community and bring

about

the

death

of others (Josh

7:5, 25). Here the evildoer is

purged

from the

community

by

being banished;

banishment

was a

common

punishment in

the Roman period. In Judaism,

exclusion from

the community

was a spiri tual equivalent of

execution, applied

in the

New

Testament period to capital

crimes of the Old

TestamentP

4. Excommunication does

not mean

that

all contact

and

relationships are severed

with the excommunicated

person.

What

i one who is

excomJ;llunicated comes to

church?

What i I am dining

at a

restaurant

where an

excommunicated member

is

also dining?

What

i I work

with

an excommunicate?

What if

my husband or

wife

is excommunicated, or

my

son

or

daughter? We do not

believe that excommunication

severs, annuls , or abrogates

all familial, domestical,

social,

or

civil relations.

While the

predominantly

Presbyterian

Westminster

Assembly was

meeting

in

England, the Congregationalists

of New England met in

Synod

at

Cambridge, Mass,

from 1646-1648.

Apart

from

their differences

concerning

congregationalism, they

were in agreement with

the

Westminster Standards. Besides

this

they

offered a

much

more detailed

statement on

church

discipline:

Chapter

4,

Paragraph 5 of The Cambridge

Platform,

Chapter

XIV - Of

Excommunication and

Other

Censures, states:

While the offender remains

excommunicate,

the

church

is to refrain from all member

like

communion

with

him

in

spiritual things,

and

also from

all familiar communion with

him in

civil things,

further

than the n ~ e s s i t y of

natural

or domes tical or civil relations

do require; and are therefore to

forbear

to eat

and

drink

with

him, that he may be ashamed.

There are

some

necessary

civil, natural,

and

domestic relations which

remain. Concerning

the

excommunicate, as

the

Form

6f Process of the General

Assembly of

the

Church

of

Scotland, April 18, 1707,

Chapter

3, Par.

17

states,

the

people

are

to

be

warned that

they

hold

that

person to be

cast

out

of the church,

and

that

they shun

all

unnecessary

converse with

him or

her,

nevertheless, exoommunication

dissolveth not

the

bonds of

civil or

natural

relations,

nor

exempts from

the

duties of

them. Excommunication

does not annul, separate, or

divorce

marriage

partners;

or abrogate their domestic

relationship, duties, and

obligations as husband and

wife or

parents and

children.

a. Does excommunication

mean that we refuse

the

necessities of life to

the

excommunicated?

The Oounsel o halceclon


8/10

Calvin on I Cor. 5:11,

wrote,

The

ROluan antichrist ,

not

content

with this severity,

has burst

forth

into

interdicts,

prohibiting

anyone

fr0111

helping one

that has been

eX00l1ll11Unioated

to food,

or

fuel, or drink, or any other of

the supports

of life (He)

(Has in his fury gone so far as

to issue forth prohibitiol1s and

threatenings - 'Let no one be

so daring as

to

give n1eat, or

drink, or fuel, to the man who

has

been

exoon1n1unioated, or

to help him in any way with

the

things necessary

for

the

present life.' Calvin responds

to this '(Romanist attitude,

Now, that is not striotness

of discipline,

but

tyrannioal

and

barbarous

cruelty, that

is altogether

at

variance

with Paul's intention. For

he

means not

that he

should

be

oounted as an enen1Y, but as

a brother, (2 Thessalonians

3:15;) for in putting this

publio

luark

of disgraoe

upon

him,

the intention

is,

that

he

luay be filled with shame,

and

brought to

repentanoe.

Exoonlluunication does not

mean that

we would not

OO1ue

to

the

aid of

one

who is

in

need of the neoessities of life.

.

b.

Does exconlluunioatiol1

mean the exconlluunioated

lose

their

civil

authority

or

rights,

or

that

they

would

not

be

welc01ue and advised to

attend public worship? Not

at all. As Par. 6 of Chapter 14

of

The

Cambridge Platfof1u

states, Exoonlluunioation

being a spiritual

punishment,

it

doth

not prejudioe the

exoon1n1unioate in,

nor

deprive

hhu

of

his

civil rights,

and therefore

toucheth not

ahing the Nations OhTist s Diseiples

princes, or

other

luagistrates,

in point of their oivil dignity

or

authority. And, the

exconlluunicate being

but

as a publioan

and

a

heathen,

heathens being lawfully

penuitted to 00111e to hear

the

word

in

ohuroh assen1blies,

. we aoknowledge therefore

the like liberty of hearing the

\Vord, lUay

be

pen11itted

to

persons

exoonll11unioate

that

is permitted to

heathen

...

o.

\Vhat if we have a work

relationship or

happen

to be

eating

at the S3111e restaurant

or other public or professional

event? Calvin states, By

partaking of food here, is

lueant

either

living together,

or

familiar assooiation

in

n1eals. For

if, on

going

into an

inn, I see one who has been

exconlluunioated Sitting

at

table, there is

nothing to hinder

lue

fr0111

dining with

hh11;

for I

have

not

authority

to

exclude

hhu. What Paullueans

is

that,

in so far as it is in our power,

we

are

to shun the society of

those Wh01U the Church has

cut

off fr01u

her

oonll11union.

I would understand Calvin

to luean

that

i I should

happen into

a publio

eating

establislll11ent and there

be an

exconu11unicate dining there

I

an1 not

obligated to leave.

5.

How does exconll11unication

affect d01uestic, f31uily,

relations? This is

the

n10st

difficult oirotl1ustance.

First

of

all, I repeat, exoonlluunication

does not annul or abrogate

faluily, d0111estic, relations. As

the C31ubridge Platfonu stated,

Vvhile

the

offender rel11ains

exconll11unioate, the churoh

is to refrain

fr0111

allluen1ber

EXCOl1ununication in

the [ J01ne

like

conlluunion

with

hhn

in

spiritual

things,

and

also

f1'01u

all falniliar con1n1union

with hin1

in

civil

things,

further

than

the necessity

of natural

or

d01uestical

or

civil relations do require; and

are therefore to forbear to

eat and

drink with hhn, that

he l11ay be ash31ued. Also,

again, The Fonu of Process

of the

General

Asselubly of

the Church of Scotland, April

18, 1707, Chapter 3, Par.

17, said

that

they

shun

all

unnecessary converse

with

hhu or

her, nevertheless,

exoonll11unication dissolveth

not the bonds of civil or

natural relations,

nor exelupts

fr0111 the

duties of thelu.

How is this to

be

applied

in

the h0111e, however? Husbands

and wives l11ay

not

divorce

each other beoause

one

or

the other is exconlluunicated.

A wife oannot refuse

to

perfonu her

luarital

and

d0111estic duties if

her

husband

is exconlluunicated. She

oannot

refuse preparing

l11eals, conjugal relations,

etc. A husband

can not deny

his wife support

and

oare.

Parents

of a child still dwelling

in the h01ue who

had been

exoonll11unioated,

and indeed,

this should be a very rare case,

would still provide for their

child.

Children should

still

honor

and obey their

parents .

Exoonll11unioation, in other

words, would not annul

the

duties assooiated

with the

applioation of

the 5th,

6th,

and 7th c0111mandl11ents

in

the

h0111e. \Ve

have

parental

and

n1arital duties

and

obligations.

\Vhat

about partaking

of

17


9/10

Excomrnunication in the Home

meals

with a family

member

who has

been excommunicated

and

is still dwelling

in

the

home? Is this a "domestical"

relation or an "ecclesiastical"

relation?

One

position is

that

eating

with is a domestic

relation in

the

home. "Eating

with in this context

is

not

a

matter

of Christian fellowship

but of

domestic

relations.

The other position is that

excommunication is from the

fellowship of the people of God,

this is a covenant home,"

therefore,

the

excommunicated

person should take his meals

apart from the family. This

makes

me think

of

an

occasion

where

an

excommunicated

member of

the

church was

staying briefly in the basement

apartment of the

pastor

while

he secured another place to

live.

It

was over a Thanksgiving

holiday.

The

pastor's family and

friends were enjoying fellowship

and

preparing

for Thanksgiving

dinner

upstairs. The gentleman

wandered

up and mingled

a bit with

the

family.

When

time came

to

eat he perhaps

hoped

that

his

status

as

excommunicated

might

be

forgotten. However, the

pastor

"fixed" (Southern for

prepared)

him

a big plate of food, handed

it

to

him,

and

said, Now, you

may go back downstairs and

eat

your food." The man later

testified

that

the

Lord,

used that

exclusion from the warmth of

the

family to begin to break

his heart. In addition, he later

revealed that the Pastor

didn't

know

that

the light was

burned

out in his

room

downstairs

and he

also

had to

sit

in the

dark

to

eat

his meal. The

whole situation just amplified

his

being cut off, in the dark,

and the Lord broke his heart

unto

repentance.

Might

not

such a practice similarly be

blessed to

break

the heart

unto

true repentance of one

who is an

excommunicated

member of the family?

What

about

an excom

municated

child, son, or

daughter, who is

no

longer a

dependent, not living

at

home?

f they

are excommunicated

should

they

not be

treated

as

any other excommunicated

person

in the

church? They

ought

to be

disinherited as

well. They

should

not, it

seems

to me, be included

in

family.

reunions, celebrations such as

birthdays and anniversaries,

or other holidays. As we have

read earlier, should they not be

treated

as banished, dead? Of

course, this does not mean, as .

Calvin stated,

that

they would

be refused the necessities of

life. This does

hot

prohibit any

one

from helping anyone

that

has been

excommunicated

to food, fuel, or drink, orany

other of the essential

supports

of life. But the point is

that

if

we love them and

care

for

their

souls, should we

not

let them

experience what

it

means to

be cut

offfrom

the fellowship

of God and His people, as

it

will be in' eternity, i f they do .

not repent?

There

are, as we

have noted,

some

ciyil, social,

and

economic relations which

cannot

be severed, but we must

at all times give

no

relief to the

directive to have

no

fellowship

with

the

excommunicated

beyond

what

is necessary -

in

order

that

they may be saved

of an excommunicated parent.

What about

the

case of minor

children who are subject to

joint custody and visitation

with an excommunicated.

parent?

Minor children must

still obey and honor their

parents and

are dependent

upon

them.

If

they are

dependent

communing

members, they are still under

their parents' authOrity, the,

5th Commandment, and will

of necessity eat with them

as

part

of natural, necessary,

or

domestic relations.

Thus, we would not lay

upon them the burden and

responsibility, or authority,

to

have no "fellowship" with

an excommunicated parent,

ie, to

eat with them, for

example.

When they are no

longer a

dependant

child .

under

the

authority of their

parents, they

should

treat

an

excommunicated

parent as

an

excommunicated pers9n. They

should

not

have "fellowship"

with the excommunicated

parent or

parents

in order

that

they

may

be saved.

Some question, "How will

we be able to restore them or

bring them to repentance i f

we don't have fellowship with

them? Excommunication is

an action that speaks louder

than

words. Excommunication

means they

have refused

all

our

admonitions; warnings,

pleadings, will

not

listen to us,

and

thus

we

are

turning them

over to Satan, as Paul said in

I Cor. 5:5. Of course, if the

excommunicate

is willing

to

converse with us about their

spiritual condition and

listen

Another

real scenario is to

continued

entreaties, we

that

of minor

covenant children

should

communicate

with

The Oounsel

o

Ohalcedon


10/10

them. But, as Daniel Wray

states, "To oontinue a prooess

of

talk

with a

person

who

has

nlade his

intention

to oontinue

in sin olear, is a failure to

aot biblioally,

t

betrays

the

extent to

whioh humanistio

psyohologioal theory has

beoome authoritative in

our

ohurohes. As G.

I.

Willianlson so aptly put it:

'Lack of ohuroh disoipline is

to be seen for what it really

is - not a loving ooncern as

is hypooritioally olait11ed,

but

an

indifferenoe to

the

honor

of Christ and the welfare of

the

flook'" (The 'Vestminster

Confession of Faith for

Study Classes, pg. 237)

14

By way of applioation,

there

oertainly needs to be

instruotion to the people of

God about exoonll11unioation.

Secondly, the ohuroh and

Session needs to be oareful

about exoonll11unioation.

Because of the seriousness of it,

t should never

be

done or

taken

lightly. It nlust be oarried out

oarefully and prayerfully, after

due

and

long efforts have been

nlade to restore one. However,

in the end, exoonll11unioation is

a fornl of disoipline to

restore

a sinning brother or sister in

order

that they

l11ay be saved

in

the day of judgnlent.

Brothers

and

Sisters, do you

love

the

Lord Jesus Christ?

Do

you love the ohuroh?

Do

you

truly

love and oare for the

exconll11unioated

aI110ng

us?

Then, we plead with you, follow

the instruotions of our Lord and

His Apostle. Wh0111 the Lord

loves, He disoiplines Heb. 12:6.

the Nations Ghrist's D1:sciples

ndnotes

,1

Richa1'd

Gan:

Documents

2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon