Excommunication

[St_Worm2]

Hi Jarvo, I"ll answer within your quoted text.

Hi, First let me prefix my post by saying for the purpose of this post I am working on the premise that pre-marital sex is a sin.

***That's a fine place to start .. (1 Thess. 4:3-5)

So - the couple mentioned in the OP are sleeping together before marriage. They were also in a position of church leadership, specifically youth leadership. Do I think this creates an issue - I would go with yes. Do I think this means they should be ex-communicated - I think I would have to go with no. For me, I think they should probably have been asked to step down from their leadership positions.

***As best as I can ascertain from the OP, Joe's church followed the prescribed model for church discipline established in Matthew 18:15-17. The problem, as I see it, with simply removing them from their ministry is that it still tells everyone involved with that church that some types of habitual and, more importantly, publically impenitent sin is really ok for the average Christian, just not for those held to a 'higher' standard in a public ministry. As I said in my post above, after they have been admonished and taken through a series of censures, if they remain unrepentant, they need to have their memberships revoked and be treated like non-Believers.

Why don't I think they should have been ex-communicated? Well - firstly the precedent for ex-communication set in 1 Corinthians 5 seems to be about a very specific situation.

***Hmmm, so the ONLY sin being considered here is a man sleeping with his stepmother? Every other sin gets a pass?? I would start naming other sins and even employing gross hyperbole for your consideration, but fortunately, I don't have to. Paul does that for us later in the chapter ..

I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 1 Corinthians 5:11
​

It then goes on to say near the end of the chapter that all those who indulge in sexual sin should be judged by the church - but does this mean they should be thrown out the church? If it does, we would then seem to come across a slight issue. If all who 'indulge' in sexual sin are to be thrown out the church, then on the premise of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 we need to throw out all who look upon a women with lust. I would suggest that if we do that, the church is going to be rather empty of men!

***No doubt, but no church is going to kick its members out for simply sinning, since we all sin (1 John 1:8-2:2). It's only for those who, after a sometimes lengthy church censure REMAIN unrepentant of their habitual sin that the Lord has exposed and made public. Jarvo, the Lord doesn't want any of His children to sin, but when we do sin, the only thing He asks of us is to confess it and repent of it and try our best to move on, right? Church discipline is applied only to those who steadfastly refuse to turn away from their sins.

Ok - so you say of course we don't think that all who sin need to be thrown out the church, the question is where there heart is at - i.e. the problem is that they are sleeping together without seeing anything wrong with it. But why do we make this belief the biggest issue? Why do we discard other factors - such as they might have a great love for people - as being less significant in whether they can be part of the church. I've never seen anyone propose kicking someone out the church for not loving their neighbour (although I witness a lot of people doing it, including myself) - but last time I checked that was one of 2 key requirements of being a christian - and the view on sex before marriage was not.

***We make this the "biggest issue" because at the moment, it's the only issue for them. The Bible is clear that what they're doing is sinful, (and just in case there's any doubt) they've been censured by their church elders as well. As I read the OP, they seem to have been given every opportunity to repent of their sin, but they refused to do so, even in the face of all of this.

As to their doing good in other areas of their life, great, but that can be said of Hitler (just to finally get my hyperbole in .. ), but do we excuse his bad behavior because of the good things he did? Or let's say that someone in church is found to be a child molester, but otherwise, he's a really great guy. Do we give him a pass?

Isn't the real problem that we don't want to recognize this sin as something that is truly, well, sinful, and that in many cases, we are also dealing with guilty consciences who are looking for an out? The problem is that it is sinful in God's eyes and has destroyed more lives than Hilter or any number of pedophiles could ever hope to do.

Now please don't misunderstand. I am not trying to trivialise the issue. However, why would we kick people out of the place where ALL people should be welcome. Are we then not prohibiting people from potentially finding that conviction?

***Do you REALLY believe these two will ever be convinced if they are allowed to continue in their sin w/o censure? Clearly they will not.

If these 2 people were not Christians, I am sure you all agree they should be welcomed in to the Church regardless of their activities.

***But the point is they're not non-Christians, they claim to be Believers, and that makes all the difference to a church in such matters.

So why do we have such a black and white line of one minute not a christian, the next minute you are = but wait since you didn't change all your thinking in an instance you need to be kicked out.

What is achieved by removing these people from the church?

***1) It makes it clear to the sinning couple that the church believes what they are engaging in is wrong in the eyes of God and that they need to repent of it or face the consequences, both now and for eternity!

2) It keeps the evil they are engaging in from permeating the hearts and minds of impressionable church members who may well think, "Hey, if they're doin it, why shouldn't I?" (1 Cor 5:6-8)

Hope that makes at least a little sense.

Yours and His,
David