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".
I don't feel in a position to pontificate as to what should or shouldn't be in any church's disciplinary toolkit, providing it isn't illegal or involves abusive practices of some kind.
In my own Tradition communion may be withheld for a season nut always with a view to eventual restoration.
I've not seen church discipline up close in practice since I became Orthodox. I've heard of priests who've been defrocked though.
We do get people, largely from Eastern European backgrounds, who bring their children to communion but don't receive themselves, either because they are co-habiting without being married or some other reason.
I don't really know how things 'work' though.
Church discipline could be somewhat heavy-handed back in my independent charismatic evangelical days though.
I'm not sure we can generalise about 'the Church in general.'
Quite apart from some Churches seeing themselves as 'The Church' - and everyone else as small c 'churches', there are some churches which don't celebrate the eucharist at all - Salvation Army, Quakers - so 'excommunication' isn't going to be an issue there.
Besides, I had no idea, until @Gramps49 mentioned it, how Lutherans do these things, and it sounds as different strands within Lutheranism handle these issues differently.
How can any of us meaningfully comment on this one when there is such a range of praxis within individual churches and denominations let alone Christendom as a whole?
I prefer using the big C in Church because, basically the Church is where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments (ordinances) are administered. There are some denominational differences especially in matters of polity. Church Discipline is a matter of polity, in my book
I prefer using the big C in Church because, basically the Church is where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments (ordinances) are administered.
While I agree—in fact, apropos to this thread, in my tradition, the Scots Confession says the true Church is found where the Word is rightly proclaimed, the sacraments rightly administered and discipline is rightly exercised—not all corners of the Church would agree that those are the defining marks, or the only defining marks, of “the Church.”
There are some denominational differences especially in matters of polity. Church Discipline is a matter of polity, in my book
But not everyone is reading from the same book you (and I) are.
There are ecclesiological and differences in polity that make it difficult to talk about 'church discipline' in anything other than very general terms.
'Excommunication' is a fairly 'technical' term.
Are you referring to 'disfellowshipping' people or withholding communion from them but allowing them to attend services?
What's meant by 'excommunication' is going to vary considerably in how it's understood or administered between an RC parish, say, and a congregational setting such as Baptist church.
I'm not knocking your understanding of 'Church' but making the point that differences in understanding as to what constitutes 'Church' and the way that individual churches administer or practice church discipline makes it difficult for you or I or anyone else to make anything other than highly general comments on this issue.
For instance, you cite the LDS, a group I'd consider quasi-Christian at best and certainly not a 'church' in the way that @Nick Tamen's Reformed tradition understands it, anymore than the RCs, Orthodox or many Protestant churches would recognise either.
I'm not trying to be awkward or pedantic, nor seeking to criticise Lutheran, Reformed or other Protestant understandings of 'Church', but simply reflecting that there are so many variables in understanding of church discipline that all we can really do is draw on experiences within our own Christian neck of the woods.
There are ecclesiological and differences in polity that make it difficult to talk about 'church discipline' in anything other than very general terms.
Or in very specific terms, along the lines of “this is what it means and doesn’t mean in my tradition,” as you suggest later in your post:
I'm not trying to be awkward or pedantic, nor seeking to criticise Lutheran, Reformed or other Protestant understandings of 'Church', but simply reflecting that there are so many variables in understanding of church discipline that all we can really do is draw on experiences within our own Christian neck of the woods.
Perhaps the OP is best viewed as an invitation to share the views from our neck of the woods and see where that might lead?
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 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?
I am always disappointed when Matt 18:15-17 is excised from its context in the discourse in which it is found - (the fourth of five discourses in which Matthew presents the teaching of Jesus, alluding to Jesus being the prophet like/greater than Moses that his Jewish Christian audience had been expecting). I see Matt 18 being the discourse on the caring community. Jesus speaks of his disciples as children, His little ones, who should not be despised, and if they go astray they should be brought back just a shepherd searches and brings back a sheep that has gone astray.
vv15-17 are sandwiched between this and the teaching on forgiveness where disciples are told that you cannot limit the number of times you are to forgive, followed by the warning parable of the unforgiving servant.
So I consider it a travesty to extract the gobbet of vv15-17 (and forget that the greatest in the Kingdom is the servant of all) and use that as the principle to act on, ignoring that the rest of the discourse is counter to that. (I surmise that Matthew included the gobbet as the audience he was writing to may have already been practicing such exclusion, and he wanted to provide a greater perspective).
This raises so many questions in my mind. Probably the one uppermost is what sort of transgressions lead to excommunication?
Are they transgressions against the structure of the church - ie when a cleric disobeys their superior?
Are they personal transgressions - ie what might be called sins? If so are they confined to sexual matters, or could a terrible landlord or the owner of a sweatshop be excommunicated?
Probably the main issue I have is that we are all imperfect and in need of transforming grace. Aside from matters of safety and protection of the vulnerable from bad actors ..... who are we to judge?
@Nick Tamen those are all good points and have clarified the issue for me. Thanks.
I will approach this thread in the way you suggest.
@Alan29 - yes, some perplexing dilemmas. Time was, back in the day, as they say, when girls who 'fell pregnant' were paraded and shamed in front of the congregation in some Welsh non-conformist chapels or strict Scottish Presbyterian churches.
It was generally the women who were blamed or excluded and not the men.
I remember, cringing, an incident in my charismatic evangelical 'new church' days where a couple who were 'expecting' before marriage were brought to the 'front' by the elders and required to confess before the whole congregation.
It was embarrassing and humiliating in the extreme.
I'm told that historically, the early Christians used to confess their sins before one another publicly and that individual auricular confession to a priest developed in response to that to save blushes.
Heck, I've even known an instance of someone 'coming out' as gay in an evangelical Anglican parish being made into a big issue by the vicar in a way that drew most of the congregation into a stand-off between one side and the other.
I don't know how that would be handled in an Orthodox parish but get the impression it would remain a matter between the individual and the priest, should they choose to share it with him.
I imagine it may vary across different parishes.
I'm finding it hard to reflect on praxis within my own Tradition and setting as I've not really seen church discipline in action there.
I came across an account in our C19th Kirk Session records. John Smith had turned up to church very drunk, and there was much tutting.
The minister told the congregation that if John Smith turned up drunk again he would be brought to stand in front of the congregation to be rebuked - and whoever sold him the alcohol would be standing next to him at the front, and would also be publicly rebuked.
Another favourite instruction from the Synod of Aberdeen to all churches, sometime in the C17th or C18th (I'd have to look it up); no-one is to suffer church discipline for talking to fairies unless they are definitely compos mentis.
@Gamma Gamaliel yes, and in our RC practice matters to do with relationships and sex etc are handled privately between individuals and the priest in whats called the "internal forum" where the primacy of the individual conscience is acknowledged. This enables people in "non-standard" domestic situations to communicate.
Which is why I was asking about other areas where Christian ethics impinge - landlords, employers etc.
Perhaps the process of excommunication could be a tool for the entire community to re-examine its attitudes toward a given subject.
An example (actually happened but not going to name people involved) It was back in the 60s, during the Civil Rights period. A young pastor, first call, was being shown around the city by a congregational elder. They came up to a civil rights protest. The elder made some disparaging remarks about the blacks. The pastor immediately told the elder he was excommunicated. This caused an uproar in the congregation, but it fostered a process in which the whole congregation examined its biases toward minorities. In the end, attitudes were changed, the whole congregation, along with the elder repented of past errors, and there was restoration.
In my mind, there are a number of possibilities where this could be applied even today. While my denomination has passed so many excellent social statements on the national level, at the congregational level, they just are not followed. The majority of ELCA members voted for Trump. Not saying a vote for anyone is cause for church discipline, but saying the vote does reflect some problems that need to be addressed.
Of course, if a congregation did take a stand, is it willing to accept the fallout? We had just lost our sound person after our bridge pastor came out in a sermon and said he could not agree with the message Charlie Kirk was promoting. The sound person literally walked out during the sermon. He sent a letter of resignation the next day. That was just three weeks ago. We have not had any other people leave to my knowledge.
Some conservatives are pointing to the overall loss of membership in our denomination as proof we are getting to "liberal." But I am thinking there are a number of other factors involved with membership loss.
Now, I would grant there have been many abuses of the excommunication card--such as shaming and shunning pregnant young women mentioned above. Which brings up the question, should this practice be eliminated altogether?
How would the elimination of that practice be enforced?
It's not one that's practised in any of the 'mainline' churches and denominations and independant churches manage their own affairs with little reference to anything or anyone outside their own community or networks.
You are continuing to post as if there is a homogeneous standard across all churches and denominations. There isn't.
That kind of overt shunning and shaming is characteristic of certain fundamentalist and ultra-conservative groups. Not all of them of course by any manner of means, but you or I or anyone else here aboard Ship aren't in a position to call the shots on how groups like that operate.
So how can practices like this be eliminated altogether unless those groups decided to drop these practices themselves?
They aren't accountable to anyone outside their own settings and ambit, other than the law of the land - and to God of course, before whom all of us must answer.
Now, I would grant there have been many abuses of the excommunication card--such as shaming and shunning pregnant young women mentioned above.
I would have to say I think the example you started your post with—the young pastor who excommunicated someone on the spot for a comment—was an abuse, even if it did lead to a productive conversation and repentance,
@Stercus Tauri and @North East Quine have described what has been the historical practice in Presbyterianism, including American Presbyterianism. Specific reference to “excommunication” as such no longer appears in the Church Discipline section of the PC(USA)’s Book of Order. I’d have to do some research to see exactly when it was removed in revisions, but my guess is that it has been at least a number of decades, perhaps around the time of reunion of the “Northern” and the “Southern” churches in the 1980s.
Our Church Discipline now provides that the censures that can be imposed are “rebuke, rebuke with supervised rehabilitation, temporary exclusion from exercise of ordered ministry (for deacons, ruling elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament) or membership rights (for non-ordained church members), and removal from ordered ministry or membership.” A person under temporary exclusion from membership rights “may continue to participate in the worship and life of the congregation of membership, but shall refrain from participating and voting in meetings of the congregation and from serving on committees, or holding any office or position of leadership in the congregation or in any council of the church.” Removal from membership means “the membership of the person found guilty is terminated, the person is removed from all rolls, and the person’s ordination and election to all ordered ministries are set aside.” Again, this does not preclude participation the worship and life of the congregation.
Any censure requires a trial. For church members, including elders and deacons, that trial is conducted by the Session. For ministers, it is conducted by the presbytery through its permanent judicial commission. Decisions are appealable.
I am not aware of any forms of discipline in any of the churches I have belonged to though there may have been some in private, but in the past, members of my family were affected by church “rules”.
My aunt stopped going to church after marriage as she was told she could no longer take Communion as she had married a divorcee.
My mum who was a Salvation Army Sergeant Major ( not an Officer) had to leave when she married a Baptist. Or that was my understanding, but maybe she chose to. Before my time, obviously. I know the rules have changed in the UK, though not in the US, as far as I know. An Officer can now be married to a non-Officer.
So far as I can find out, excommunication in the formal legal sense seems to have faded away in the Church of England in the course of the eighteenth century. It seems in its later days to have been used as a way of enforcing legal remedies in proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts. Remember that until the mid-nineteenth century, these were the responsibility of the church and functioned in parallel with the ordinary courts. They dealt mainly with wills and what is now Family Law. In the mid-nineteenth century they were transferred into the ordinary court system.
Well within my lifetime people who had infringed what were generally recognised as church rules were likely to be refused communion. This was, though, less likely actually to happen as they either did not go up to receive or just stopped attending church. The issue where this was most likely to arise was for those who had remarried after divorce, or had married someone who had been divorced, especially if their parish church was Anglo-Catholic. The Abdication Crisis in 1936 and the row about Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend both meant that people knew about the CofE's discomfort with remarriage after divorce.
However, this isn't what excommunication technically means in law.
Because most people, including clergy, prefer to avoid scenes, these sort of issues are usually dealt with confidentially and informally.
I am puzzled by the suggestion that a person who stopped coming or actually resigned from membership because they did not like a sermon is a matter of discipline. After all, they are the one who has decided to walk. Furthermore, there is presumably no reason why they should not go to some other church next week.
50+ years ago a couple turned up at the church I then attended (CofE) who had been thrown out of a freelance congregation for missing church one Sunday. The minister/ elder in charge expected total loyalty. The couple suspected that the real reason why they had been thrown out was not their non attendance so much as that the minister was pretty suspicious that they did not 100% respect and accept the authority he claimed he was entitled to. They were amused rather than crestfallen by this. They admitted that although they had not said anything beforehand, the man's suspicions were valid and they had been thinking of moving on anyway.
Originally posted by Gamma Gamaliel: It was generally the women who were blamed or excluded and not the men.
Historically, in my parish church, the church was very keen to deal with the men, too. This was because an unmarried mother who could not support herself and her child , would need financial support from the church. Identifying the father and disciplining him increased the chance that he would provide for the child financially, and the church would be off the hook. Once the Poor Roll fell under government control, in 1847, this pressure lessened, but did not stop, as the church administered funds for the poor.
I wrote an article on one woman in my village. In 1814 Ann was widowed aged 26, with a toddler, and was dependent on the church for support. She then fell pregnant, she and the father were disciplined, but when he did a runner she was back onto parish support. Another pregnancy by a different man, another round of discipline, another runner, back onto parish support. Two years later she was pregnant again, but couldn't name, or even identify, the father as it had been dark and she hadn't seen his face clearly. She could, however, describe his pony (!) The owner of a pony matching the description was identified and summoned to appear before the church. He denied paternity, and Ann continued on parish support.
Things took a turn for the better when the father of her next child does seem to have paid for the child. She was still receiving parish support, but at a reduced rate.
When she fell pregnant again, the father was disciplined, but she was not. It appears she either miscarried, or the child was stillborn. She was 41, and it was her last pregnancy. She was living rent free in a house provided for paupers, but able to support herself by taking in washing.
Unfortunately her 17 year old daughter then had a baby - the father was censured, but she wasn't. I'm not sure why. But at any rate, the church was helping support the family again. Then her son started working and became the family breadwinner until his girlfriend fell pregnant. He married her, but couldn't support his own wife and child, plus support his mother, sister and her child. So Ann was once again getting some financial aid from the church. By the time Ann died in 1868, aged 80, she had been in receipt of various amounts of poor relief from the church for 54 years. She's an extreme case, but it's not hard to see why the church was very keen to discourage illegitimate births in the C18th and C19th.
This raises so many questions in my mind. Probably the one uppermost is what sort of transgressions lead to excommunication?
Are they transgressions against the structure of the church - ie when a cleric disobeys their superior?
Are they personal transgressions - ie what might be called sins? If so are they confined to sexual matters, or could a terrible landlord or the owner of a sweatshop be excommunicated?
Probably the main issue I have is that we are all imperfect and in need of transforming grace. Aside from matters of safety and protection of the vulnerable from bad actors ..... who are we to judge?
Or, at least for clergy, serious heresy or blasphemy or becoming apostate.
I came across an account in our C19th Kirk Session records. John Smith had turned up to church very drunk, and there was much tutting.
The minister told the congregation that if John Smith turned up drunk again he would be brought to stand in front of the congregation to be rebuked - and whoever sold him the alcohol would be standing next to him at the front, and would also be publicly rebuked.
Another favourite instruction from the Synod of Aberdeen to all churches, sometime in the C17th or C18th (I'd have to look it up); no-one is to suffer church discipline for talking to fairies unless they are definitely compos mentis.
I wonder if the fairies do/did the same thing? “Messing with mortals again? You know that’s against the rules…”
I was listening to an older episode of the Holy Post podcast from 2014 recently, and they were talking about the then-current Mark Driscoll scandal, and one of the issues they mentioned is that in that kind of evangelicalism, there’s no kind of denominational authority to determine what should be done. The whole “unaccountable megachurch pastor” is an issue they discussed. (Phil Vischer joked that they need an evangelical pope.)
Driscoll opened a new church less than two years later, by the way.
I am puzzled by the suggestion that a person who stopped coming or actually resigned from membership because they did not like a sermon is a matter of discipline. After all, they are the one who has decided to walk. Furthermore, there is presumably no reason why they should not go to some other church next week.
I did not mean to imply that. I meant if a person is in disagreement with a church position, they will more likely find another fellowship than not. In the case of this young man, that is what he did. I was trying to point out it is hard to exercise church discipline, especially when there are many other options for those who disagree with a ecclesiastical position.
I came across an account in our C19th Kirk Session records. John Smith had turned up to church very drunk, and there was much tutting.
The minister told the congregation that if John Smith turned up drunk again he would be brought to stand in front of the congregation to be rebuked - and whoever sold him the alcohol would be standing next to him at the front, and would also be publicly rebuked.
Another favourite instruction from the Synod of Aberdeen to all churches, sometime in the C17th or C18th (I'd have to look it up); no-one is to suffer church discipline for talking to fairies unless they are definitely compos mentis.
I wonder if the fairies do/did the same thing? “Messing with mortals again? You know that’s against the rules…”
This raises so many questions in my mind. Probably the one uppermost is what sort of transgressions lead to excommunication?
Are they transgressions against the structure of the church - ie when a cleric disobeys their superior?
Are they personal transgressions - ie what might be called sins? If so are they confined to sexual matters, or could a terrible landlord or the owner of a sweatshop be excommunicated?
Probably the main issue I have is that we are all imperfect and in need of transforming grace. Aside from matters of safety and protection of the vulnerable from bad actors ..... who are we to judge?
Or, at least for clergy, serious heresy or blasphemy or becoming apostate.
This raises so many questions in my mind. Probably the one uppermost is what sort of transgressions lead to excommunication?
Are they transgressions against the structure of the church - ie when a cleric disobeys their superior?
Are they personal transgressions - ie what might be called sins? If so are they confined to sexual matters, or could a terrible landlord or the owner of a sweatshop be excommunicated?
Probably the main issue I have is that we are all imperfect and in need of transforming grace. Aside from matters of safety and protection of the vulnerable from bad actors ..... who are we to judge?
Or, at least for clergy, serious heresy or blasphemy or becoming apostate.
I was kind of discounting clergy as most churches seem to have disciplinary procedures to deal with "employees" who breach codes of conduct.
This raises so many questions in my mind. Probably the one uppermost is what sort of transgressions lead to excommunication?
Are they transgressions against the structure of the church - ie when a cleric disobeys their superior?
Are they personal transgressions - ie what might be called sins? If so are they confined to sexual matters, or could a terrible landlord or the owner of a sweatshop be excommunicated?
Probably the main issue I have is that we are all imperfect and in need of transforming grace. Aside from matters of safety and protection of the vulnerable from bad actors ..... who are we to judge?
Or, at least for clergy, serious heresy or blasphemy or becoming apostate.
Apostate according to whom?
And how would this be assessed?
I'm told that most mainstream and historic churches have procedures for dealing pastorally with clergy/ministers who lose their faith.
I know of instances where this has happened and the minister/clergyperson has negotiated an exit with the denominational authorities. They weren't booted out but left of their own volition.
Heck, I'm not being facetious but I've come actossca number of Anglican clergy in my time who certainly don't hold to the historic Creeds which Anglicanism professes.
This raises so many questions in my mind. Probably the one uppermost is what sort of transgressions lead to excommunication?
Are they transgressions against the structure of the church - ie when a cleric disobeys their superior?
Are they personal transgressions - ie what might be called sins? If so are they confined to sexual matters, or could a terrible landlord or the owner of a sweatshop be excommunicated?
Probably the main issue I have is that we are all imperfect and in need of transforming grace. Aside from matters of safety and protection of the vulnerable from bad actors ..... who are we to judge?
Or, at least for clergy, serious heresy or blasphemy or becoming apostate.
Apostate according to whom?
The doctrines, or core doctrines, of whatever denomination they are clergy of.
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".
I don't feel in a position to pontificate as to what should or shouldn't be in any church's disciplinary toolkit, providing it isn't illegal or involves abusive practices of some kind.
In my own Tradition communion may be withheld for a season nut always with a view to eventual restoration.
I've not seen church discipline up close in practice since I became Orthodox. I've heard of priests who've been defrocked though.
We do get people, largely from Eastern European backgrounds, who bring their children to communion but don't receive themselves, either because they are co-habiting without being married or some other reason.
I don't really know how things 'work' though.
Church discipline could be somewhat heavy-handed back in my independent charismatic evangelical days though.
Quite apart from some Churches seeing themselves as 'The Church' - and everyone else as small c 'churches', there are some churches which don't celebrate the eucharist at all - Salvation Army, Quakers - so 'excommunication' isn't going to be an issue there.
Besides, I had no idea, until @Gramps49 mentioned it, how Lutherans do these things, and it sounds as different strands within Lutheranism handle these issues differently.
How can any of us meaningfully comment on this one when there is such a range of praxis within individual churches and denominations let alone Christendom as a whole?
But not everyone is reading from the same book you (and I) are.
There are ecclesiological and differences in polity that make it difficult to talk about 'church discipline' in anything other than very general terms.
'Excommunication' is a fairly 'technical' term.
Are you referring to 'disfellowshipping' people or withholding communion from them but allowing them to attend services?
What's meant by 'excommunication' is going to vary considerably in how it's understood or administered between an RC parish, say, and a congregational setting such as Baptist church.
I'm not knocking your understanding of 'Church' but making the point that differences in understanding as to what constitutes 'Church' and the way that individual churches administer or practice church discipline makes it difficult for you or I or anyone else to make anything other than highly general comments on this issue.
For instance, you cite the LDS, a group I'd consider quasi-Christian at best and certainly not a 'church' in the way that @Nick Tamen's Reformed tradition understands it, anymore than the RCs, Orthodox or many Protestant churches would recognise either.
I'm not trying to be awkward or pedantic, nor seeking to criticise Lutheran, Reformed or other Protestant understandings of 'Church', but simply reflecting that there are so many variables in understanding of church discipline that all we can really do is draw on experiences within our own Christian neck of the woods.
Perhaps the OP is best viewed as an invitation to share the views from our neck of the woods and see where that might lead?
I am always disappointed when Matt 18:15-17 is excised from its context in the discourse in which it is found - (the fourth of five discourses in which Matthew presents the teaching of Jesus, alluding to Jesus being the prophet like/greater than Moses that his Jewish Christian audience had been expecting). I see Matt 18 being the discourse on the caring community. Jesus speaks of his disciples as children, His little ones, who should not be despised, and if they go astray they should be brought back just a shepherd searches and brings back a sheep that has gone astray.
vv15-17 are sandwiched between this and the teaching on forgiveness where disciples are told that you cannot limit the number of times you are to forgive, followed by the warning parable of the unforgiving servant.
So I consider it a travesty to extract the gobbet of vv15-17 (and forget that the greatest in the Kingdom is the servant of all) and use that as the principle to act on, ignoring that the rest of the discourse is counter to that. (I surmise that Matthew included the gobbet as the audience he was writing to may have already been practicing such exclusion, and he wanted to provide a greater perspective).
Are they transgressions against the structure of the church - ie when a cleric disobeys their superior?
Are they personal transgressions - ie what might be called sins? If so are they confined to sexual matters, or could a terrible landlord or the owner of a sweatshop be excommunicated?
Probably the main issue I have is that we are all imperfect and in need of transforming grace. Aside from matters of safety and protection of the vulnerable from bad actors ..... who are we to judge?
I will approach this thread in the way you suggest.
@Alan29 - yes, some perplexing dilemmas. Time was, back in the day, as they say, when girls who 'fell pregnant' were paraded and shamed in front of the congregation in some Welsh non-conformist chapels or strict Scottish Presbyterian churches.
It was generally the women who were blamed or excluded and not the men.
I remember, cringing, an incident in my charismatic evangelical 'new church' days where a couple who were 'expecting' before marriage were brought to the 'front' by the elders and required to confess before the whole congregation.
It was embarrassing and humiliating in the extreme.
I'm told that historically, the early Christians used to confess their sins before one another publicly and that individual auricular confession to a priest developed in response to that to save blushes.
Heck, I've even known an instance of someone 'coming out' as gay in an evangelical Anglican parish being made into a big issue by the vicar in a way that drew most of the congregation into a stand-off between one side and the other.
I don't know how that would be handled in an Orthodox parish but get the impression it would remain a matter between the individual and the priest, should they choose to share it with him.
I imagine it may vary across different parishes.
I'm finding it hard to reflect on praxis within my own Tradition and setting as I've not really seen church discipline in action there.
It may be going on without my being aware of it.
The minister told the congregation that if John Smith turned up drunk again he would be brought to stand in front of the congregation to be rebuked - and whoever sold him the alcohol would be standing next to him at the front, and would also be publicly rebuked.
Another favourite instruction from the Synod of Aberdeen to all churches, sometime in the C17th or C18th (I'd have to look it up); no-one is to suffer church discipline for talking to fairies unless they are definitely compos mentis.
Which is why I was asking about other areas where Christian ethics impinge - landlords, employers etc.
An example (actually happened but not going to name people involved) It was back in the 60s, during the Civil Rights period. A young pastor, first call, was being shown around the city by a congregational elder. They came up to a civil rights protest. The elder made some disparaging remarks about the blacks. The pastor immediately told the elder he was excommunicated. This caused an uproar in the congregation, but it fostered a process in which the whole congregation examined its biases toward minorities. In the end, attitudes were changed, the whole congregation, along with the elder repented of past errors, and there was restoration.
In my mind, there are a number of possibilities where this could be applied even today. While my denomination has passed so many excellent social statements on the national level, at the congregational level, they just are not followed. The majority of ELCA members voted for Trump. Not saying a vote for anyone is cause for church discipline, but saying the vote does reflect some problems that need to be addressed.
Of course, if a congregation did take a stand, is it willing to accept the fallout? We had just lost our sound person after our bridge pastor came out in a sermon and said he could not agree with the message Charlie Kirk was promoting. The sound person literally walked out during the sermon. He sent a letter of resignation the next day. That was just three weeks ago. We have not had any other people leave to my knowledge.
Some conservatives are pointing to the overall loss of membership in our denomination as proof we are getting to "liberal." But I am thinking there are a number of other factors involved with membership loss.
Now, I would grant there have been many abuses of the excommunication card--such as shaming and shunning pregnant young women mentioned above. Which brings up the question, should this practice be eliminated altogether?
It's not one that's practised in any of the 'mainline' churches and denominations and independant churches manage their own affairs with little reference to anything or anyone outside their own community or networks.
You are continuing to post as if there is a homogeneous standard across all churches and denominations. There isn't.
That kind of overt shunning and shaming is characteristic of certain fundamentalist and ultra-conservative groups. Not all of them of course by any manner of means, but you or I or anyone else here aboard Ship aren't in a position to call the shots on how groups like that operate.
So how can practices like this be eliminated altogether unless those groups decided to drop these practices themselves?
They aren't accountable to anyone outside their own settings and ambit, other than the law of the land - and to God of course, before whom all of us must answer.
@Stercus Tauri and @North East Quine have described what has been the historical practice in Presbyterianism, including American Presbyterianism. Specific reference to “excommunication” as such no longer appears in the Church Discipline section of the PC(USA)’s Book of Order. I’d have to do some research to see exactly when it was removed in revisions, but my guess is that it has been at least a number of decades, perhaps around the time of reunion of the “Northern” and the “Southern” churches in the 1980s.
Our Church Discipline now provides that the censures that can be imposed are “rebuke, rebuke with supervised rehabilitation, temporary exclusion from exercise of ordered ministry (for deacons, ruling elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament) or membership rights (for non-ordained church members), and removal from ordered ministry or membership.” A person under temporary exclusion from membership rights “may continue to participate in the worship and life of the congregation of membership, but shall refrain from participating and voting in meetings of the congregation and from serving on committees, or holding any office or position of leadership in the congregation or in any council of the church.” Removal from membership means “the membership of the person found guilty is terminated, the person is removed from all rolls, and the person’s ordination and election to all ordered ministries are set aside.” Again, this does not preclude participation the worship and life of the congregation.
Any censure requires a trial. For church members, including elders and deacons, that trial is conducted by the Session. For ministers, it is conducted by the presbytery through its permanent judicial commission. Decisions are appealable.
My aunt stopped going to church after marriage as she was told she could no longer take Communion as she had married a divorcee.
My mum who was a Salvation Army Sergeant Major ( not an Officer) had to leave when she married a Baptist. Or that was my understanding, but maybe she chose to. Before my time, obviously. I know the rules have changed in the UK, though not in the US, as far as I know. An Officer can now be married to a non-Officer.
Well within my lifetime people who had infringed what were generally recognised as church rules were likely to be refused communion. This was, though, less likely actually to happen as they either did not go up to receive or just stopped attending church. The issue where this was most likely to arise was for those who had remarried after divorce, or had married someone who had been divorced, especially if their parish church was Anglo-Catholic. The Abdication Crisis in 1936 and the row about Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend both meant that people knew about the CofE's discomfort with remarriage after divorce.
However, this isn't what excommunication technically means in law.
Because most people, including clergy, prefer to avoid scenes, these sort of issues are usually dealt with confidentially and informally.
I am puzzled by the suggestion that a person who stopped coming or actually resigned from membership because they did not like a sermon is a matter of discipline. After all, they are the one who has decided to walk. Furthermore, there is presumably no reason why they should not go to some other church next week.
50+ years ago a couple turned up at the church I then attended (CofE) who had been thrown out of a freelance congregation for missing church one Sunday. The minister/ elder in charge expected total loyalty. The couple suspected that the real reason why they had been thrown out was not their non attendance so much as that the minister was pretty suspicious that they did not 100% respect and accept the authority he claimed he was entitled to. They were amused rather than crestfallen by this. They admitted that although they had not said anything beforehand, the man's suspicions were valid and they had been thinking of moving on anyway.
It was generally the women who were blamed or excluded and not the men.
Historically, in my parish church, the church was very keen to deal with the men, too. This was because an unmarried mother who could not support herself and her child , would need financial support from the church. Identifying the father and disciplining him increased the chance that he would provide for the child financially, and the church would be off the hook. Once the Poor Roll fell under government control, in 1847, this pressure lessened, but did not stop, as the church administered funds for the poor.
I wrote an article on one woman in my village. In 1814 Ann was widowed aged 26, with a toddler, and was dependent on the church for support. She then fell pregnant, she and the father were disciplined, but when he did a runner she was back onto parish support. Another pregnancy by a different man, another round of discipline, another runner, back onto parish support. Two years later she was pregnant again, but couldn't name, or even identify, the father as it had been dark and she hadn't seen his face clearly. She could, however, describe his pony (!) The owner of a pony matching the description was identified and summoned to appear before the church. He denied paternity, and Ann continued on parish support.
Things took a turn for the better when the father of her next child does seem to have paid for the child. She was still receiving parish support, but at a reduced rate.
When she fell pregnant again, the father was disciplined, but she was not. It appears she either miscarried, or the child was stillborn. She was 41, and it was her last pregnancy. She was living rent free in a house provided for paupers, but able to support herself by taking in washing.
Unfortunately her 17 year old daughter then had a baby - the father was censured, but she wasn't. I'm not sure why. But at any rate, the church was helping support the family again. Then her son started working and became the family breadwinner until his girlfriend fell pregnant. He married her, but couldn't support his own wife and child, plus support his mother, sister and her child. So Ann was once again getting some financial aid from the church. By the time Ann died in 1868, aged 80, she had been in receipt of various amounts of poor relief from the church for 54 years. She's an extreme case, but it's not hard to see why the church was very keen to discourage illegitimate births in the C18th and C19th.
Or, at least for clergy, serious heresy or blasphemy or becoming apostate.
I wonder if the fairies do/did the same thing? “Messing with mortals again? You know that’s against the rules…”
Driscoll opened a new church less than two years later, by the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll
You wrote:
I did not mean to imply that. I meant if a person is in disagreement with a church position, they will more likely find another fellowship than not. In the case of this young man, that is what he did. I was trying to point out it is hard to exercise church discipline, especially when there are many other options for those who disagree with a ecclesiastical position.
We know a comic opera about that.
Apostate according to whom?
I was kind of discounting clergy as most churches seem to have disciplinary procedures to deal with "employees" who breach codes of conduct.
And how would this be assessed?
I'm told that most mainstream and historic churches have procedures for dealing pastorally with clergy/ministers who lose their faith.
I know of instances where this has happened and the minister/clergyperson has negotiated an exit with the denominational authorities. They weren't booted out but left of their own volition.
Heck, I'm not being facetious but I've come actossca number of Anglican clergy in my time who certainly don't hold to the historic Creeds which Anglicanism professes.
Nobody's come along and kicked them out.
The doctrines, or core doctrines, of whatever denomination they are clergy of.