This sermon I am about to preach is not like the sermons I typically preach. 

For one, it is not an expositional sermon, but a topical sermon through and through. It is about church discipline, the variety of situations that the church will encounter that require discipline, and the variety of measures or tools that are at our disposal. 

Two, this sermon is a little longer than usual. There is a risk in admitting that it is a bit longer in these introductory remarks, for this might lead some to tune out from the beginning. I hope it has the opposite effect. Please tune in, brothers and sisters.  

I’ve decided to preach on this topic and to devote a little more time to its development because I think it is important. We, as a congregation, have several church discipline cases to address. Each of them is different. If we lack clarity of mind concerning these cases and what the Scriptures require us to do in response to them, it could lead to confusion and even division within the congregation. It is to guard against confusion and possible division that I have decided to preach this topical sermon today. I pray the church will be edified by this teaching.   

*****

Scripture Reading: Galatians 6:1–2

“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:1–2, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church, but without the benefit of proofreading.

Sermon

What is church discipline?

Generally speaking, church discipline is one part of the discipleship process. Christ has commissioned his church, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV). Baptized disciples of Jesus Christ are to join local churches, wherein they will be taught to observe all that Christ has commanded. Ordinarily, this teaching comes in the form of the public preaching of the Scriptures and private instruction from the Word of God, but church discipline also plays a role. Through discipline, sinning church members are corrected and exhorted to walk in obedience to the commands of Christ. 

After all, the same Jesus who commissioned his Apostles to go and make disciples, to baptize, and to teach these to observe all that he commanded, also said, 

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:15–20, ESV)

This passage is about church discipline. Christ is clear that his churches are to be disciplined societies. The doors of church membership are to be opened only to those who make a credible profession of faith. And those who destroy the credibility of their profession by persisting in sin are to be put out of the church. This is called excommunication. 

But there is much more to church discipline than excommunication. As I have said, Church discipline is a crucial part of Christian discipleship. It is one of the means that the church must use as she endeavors to obey the Great Commission by teaching baptized disciples of Jesus to obey all that Christ has commanded. 

As you may know, church discipline is rarely practiced in many churches today. Even churches that endeavor to preach and teach the Word of God will often neglect discipline, and it is to their great detriment. 

Churches that preach the Word but do not practice discipline may be compared to parents who instruct their children verbally but fail to follow through with discipline when the children are willfully defiant. Mom, Dad, how many times are you going to tell your child not to speak disrespectfully to you before you discipline your child for their defiance? It is true, instruction is needed. Little children must be taught to honor father and mother. They must be taught the difference between right and wrong. But once the child knows that a particular behavior is wrong and forbidden, they must be consistently disciplined (in a loving and self-controlled way) when they defy the instructions of their parents. Instruction is needed, and so too is discipline. And so it is in Christ’s churches. 

What is the aim or goal of church discipline? Here is what our constitution says: “Church discipline aims for the glory of God, the welfare and purity of the church, and the restoration and spiritual growth of the offender” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V. Section 1). This is true. 

To be clear, there is a kind of discipline that should always be taking place within the church behind the scenes. This has been called formative church discipline. Our constitution says this about formative church discipline: “Formative church discipline is the church engaged in edifying and disciplining itself in love. It is the responsibility of each member to endeavor to maintain this Christian duty of mutual edification for one another (Romans 12:3-8; I Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:7-16; I Thessalonians 5:11-14; I Peter 4:10,11). This is done by the use of and submission to the gifts of those both old and young, office bearer and member, which Christ graciously gives to his church” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V, Section 3). Galatians 6:1-2, which we read a moment ago, describes formative church discipline, as does 1 Thessalonians 5:11-14: “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all” (1 Thessalonians 5:11–14, ESV).

Formative church discipline must always be taking place amongst the membership of the church, but sometimes formal or corrective church discipline is required. And there are a variety of situations that will require formal church discipline. Our constitution says, “​​In cases of actual or presumed private offense between members, including church officers, it is required that the rule prescribed by Christ in Matthew 18:15-17 be faithfully observed. In cases of persons holding false doctrine, or who openly persist in ungodliness (I John 2:15-17; Romans 12:1,2; II Corinthians 6:14-7:1), or who live in violation of the law or public morals, or who walk disorderly, or who persist in disturbing the unity and peace of this church, it is the duty of the church to exercise discipline according to the scriptures (II Thessalonians 3:6,11,14,15; Titus 3:10,11; I Corinthians 5:1; Romans 16:17).” 

The important thing to notice here is that the Scriptures describe a variety of situations wherein formal church discipline will be required. Sometimes, church members will sin against other members and refuse to repent (Matthew 18:15-17). Sometimes, church members commit heinous sins that immediately call into question the credibility of their profession of faith, especially if there is no repentance displayed (1 Corinthians 5). Sometimes church members are found holding to or promoting false doctrines that undermine the very foundation of the faith (Galatians 1:8-9). Sometimes, church members stir up division in the body of Christ (Titus 3:10-11). And sometimes, brothers and sisters in Christ behave in an immature and disorderly way (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). Each of these situations will require the church to take certain measures. In each, we must follow the “rule prescribed by Christ” as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. In every case, the aim or goal of church discipline remains the same. Hear it again,  “Church discipline aims for the glory of God, the welfare and purity of the church, and the restoration and spiritual growth of the offender” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V. Section 1). 

All that I have said so far should be regarded as introductory. I’m confident that the members of this church are familiar with most of what I have just said. I’ve decided to take up the topic of church discipline today, to be sure we as a church have clarity and unity of mind concerning two things: 

One, I hope it is clear that not every church discipline case is the same. As has been said, there are a variety of situations that will require formal church discipline. The church (with the elders in the lead) must endeavor to carefully follow the Scriptures in each case with wisdom and care. 

Two, I think it is important for us to be aware of the variety of tools or measures made available to us by Christ as revealed in his Word when conducting discipline. I’m afraid that some assume that Matthew 18 is the only church discipline text—it is not. And I’m afraid that some only think of full or direct excommunication when they think of the mechanisms available to the church. We have more options, brothers and sisters, and we must know what they are.

You must know that when conducting formal church discipline, the church (with the elders in the lead) may censure, suspend, withdraw from, excommunicate, or exclude a sinning member. 

Censure

What is censure? 

Sometimes the term is used generically to describe someone who is under formal church discipline – this person is under censure, we may say. More precisely, the term censure, or public censure, refers to “a public admonition, reproof or rebuke of a sinning member.” Public censure is to be administered by the elders of the church. And its purpose is to inform the congregation that the erring member is living contrary to the scriptures in word and/or deed,” and to call them to repentance  (see The Emmaus Constitution, Article V, Section 4). 

That Christ has given elders the authority to rebuke is made clear in the letters that Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus.  

Paul wrote to Timothy, saying, “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Timothy 5:20, ESV). In another place, he commanded Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2, ESV).

Paul wrote to Titus, saying, “This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith…” (Titus 1:13, ESV). Later in the same letter, he commanded Titus to  “Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15, ESV). And when Paul listed the qualifications for the office of elder, he said, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9, ESV).

This last verse raises a very important point. The authority that a pastor or elder has to rebuke the members of the congregation is a ministerial authority. By this, we mean that elders may rebuke as a minister or servant of Christ and the people. A minister is not permitted to rebuke arbitrarily based upon his own ideas or opinions. He is to rebuke as a minister or bondservant of Christ. He is to rebuke from the Word of God when members contradict sound doctrine. Hear the verse again: An elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9, ESV).  

Public censure is an important and powerful tool that Christ has given to the church to be used in discipline under certain circumstances. 

Suspension

We’ve considered censure. What is suspension?

According to Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Particular Baptist, and one signatories of our confession of faith, “Suspension is to be [used] when a member falls under sin, and the church wants time fully to hear the matter, and so can’t withdraw from him, or cast him out” (Keach, Glory Of A True Church, 37).

Although the term “suspension” is not used, our constitution describes suspension in Article V, Section 4, under the heading of Public Censure. After providing the definition of censure (which we have just considered), our constitution goes on to say, “This may result in the loss of the privilege of the Lord’s Supper, involvement in church business meetings, and other sanctions as judged appropriate by the congregation and/or elders. Upon evidence of genuine repentance, the member shall be publicly restored to full privileges of membership (Ephesians 4:28).” Again, though the term is not used, this section of our constitution describes suspension.

Please notice that our constitution gives authority to the members and/or elders to suspend from the Lord’s Table, etc. I will say, this is one of those places in our constitution that I am not completely comfortable with, and I think my co-elders agree. While I agree that elders have the authority to rebuke or censure (1 Timothy 5:20), I do not believe the elders should have the authority to unilaterally suspend from the Lord’s Table, etc., at least not for a prolonged time, without the consent of the congregation. If the elders do have the authority to suspend members from the Lord’s Table and involvement in church business meetings, I believe it should only be under certain circumstances and for a very limited amount of time. The members should be asked to consent to the suspension speedily. I trust you can see why I’m uncomfortable with elders possessing this authority in an unchecked way. It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which an authoritarian pastor or eldership might abuse it. Perhaps the elders will propose amendments to our constitution on this point in the future. Until then, your elders are committed to not abusing this principle. 

That said, I do believe it is wise for the church to have the ability to suspend members from the Lord’s Table and from church business meetings, etc. At times, the church may be faced with very perplexing situations. On the one hand, it may be clear that a member has sinned grievously and should not come to the Table or participate in church life as usual. On the other hand, it may not be so clear as to how the church should proceed. Should the person be excommunicated? Should they be withdrawn from? Are the charges true? If so, are they truly repentant? 

If you were to ask me for a scriptural proof text for suspension, I’ll admit that I cannot give you one. I believe this is a light of nature or wisdom issue (Second London Confession 1.6). And because this is a principle drawn from the light of nature, it is all the more reason to limit whatever power is given to elders to use it.   

Withdrawal

We have considered two tools available to us in discipline: censure and suspension. Now we ask, what does it mean to withdraw from a member?

The key scripture text is 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. I’ll read from the KNJV, given that it uses the English word “withdraw” to translate the Greek, instead of the phrase “keep away”, as the ESV does. Either translation is fine, but I want you to see where the term “withdraw” is coming from.

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition [instruction] which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, NKJV)

This passage is very interesting. It seems to speak of a church discipline option that is often overlooked. Notice a few things about this text:

First, notice the nature of the sin under consideration, namely, disorderliness. In the context, some in the church of Thessalonica were refusing to work to provide for themselves and those under their care. Paul categorized this sin as disorderliness. “For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies” (2 Thessalonians 3:11, NKJV).

Secondly, notice that Paul considered this sin to be serious and worthy of a serious response from the church. He wrote to the church, saying, in verse 6, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6, NKJV). In verse 10 he says, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10, NKJV). And finally, in verse 14, he says, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thessalonians 3:14, NKJV). That Paul viewed the disorderliness as a serious problem is made clear by the measures he commanded the church to take. Those who persisted in this way of life were to be noted, and they were to be withdrawn from. The church was not to associate or keep company with them. And what was the goal or aim? The text says, ​“that he may be ashamed.” The conviction of sin and repentance within the disorderly person was the aim. 

Thirdly, notice that though this withdrawal from a disorderly brother is a kind of excommunication, it comes short of full excommunication in that the person is not to be regarded as a non-believer (Matthew 18:17) or handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Corinthians 5:5). 2 Thessalonians 3:15 says, “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother”. In just a moment, we will answer the question, What is excommunication? In brief, those excommunicated are to be put out of the church, regarded as tax collectors and Gentile sinners, and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. But here, Paul says, “Yet do not count [the disorderly brother or sister whom you are to withdraw from] as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, NKJV).

I will admit that in the reading I have done on this subject, I have found different interpretations of the words, “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, NKJV). Some, like Jonathan Edwards, whom I will quote later, seem to take this to mean that the church is to apply this principle to all who are excommunicated. Even after full excommunication, we are not “to count [them] as an enemy, but admonish [them] as brothers.” I don’t agree with this interpretation (if I have understood Edwards correctly). 

It is my opinion that Paul is here presenting us with a form of excommunication (if I may call it that) that comes short of full excommunication, which involves viewing the person as a tax collector, a Gentile sinner, and an enemy of the cross of Christ, and demands that we still view and admonish the person as a brother or sister in Christ. After a person is excommunicated (fully), we are not to say, brother, repent. Rather, we are simply to say, repent and turn to Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins. But these disorderly Christians whom Paul commanded the church to withdraw from were still to be admonished as brothers.  

What’s the difference, you ask? Why wouldn’t Paul command that these unrepentant sinners be fully excommunicated from the church, regarded as non-believers, and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh? It must be this: the nature of their sin was such that they had not destroyed the credibility of their profession of faith, at least not yet. These were to be admonished and, if not repentant, withdrawn from. This must mean that they were to be barred from the Lord’s Table and fellowship with the church. But they were not to be cast off entirely. They were not to be counted as enemies but rather warned as brothers. 

I’m aware that not all will agree with my interpretation, but some will. Benjamin Keach seems to interpret 2 Thessalonians 3 in this way (see also the way that William Kiffin applies 2 Thessalonians 3 in, A Sober Discourse Of Right To Church Communion).

Listen to Keach. This comes from chapter 7 of his book, The Glory Of A True Church. “If any member walks disorderly, though not guilty of gross scandalous sins, he or she, as soon as it is taken notice of, ought to be admonished, and endeavors to be used to bring him to repentance” He then cites our passage, “For we hear that there are some which walk disorderly, not working at all, but are busy-bodies” (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12). And then, after clarifying that he does not take this to mean that these Christains were guilty of the egregious sins of gossip and slander, and after telling us that they must be admonished, he says, 

“But if after all due endeavors used, he is not reclaimed, but continues a disorderly person, the church must withdraw from him. Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions he received from us [2 Thessalonians 3:6]. This is not a delivering up to Satan, excommunicating or dismembering the person; for this sort are still to be owned as members, though disorderly ones: the church must note him so as not to have communion or company with him in that sense; yet count him not as an enemy, but exhort him as a brother: if any man obey not our word, note that man [2 Thessalonians 3:14-15]. It appears that such who refuse to adhere to what the pastor commands and exhorts to [Hebrews 12:25], in the name of Christ, are to be deemed disorderly persons, as such are who meet not with the church when assembled together to worship God, or that neglect private or family prayer, or neglect their attendance on the Lord’s Supper, or to contribute to the necessary charges of the church, or suffer an evil unreproved in their children; all such may be looked upon disorderly walkers, and ought to be proceeded against according to this rule….” (Keach, The Glory Of A True Church, 37-39).

Though the term is not used, our constitution leaves room for the possibility of withdrawal in Article V, Section 4 under the heading, Public Censure, in the words, “This may result in the loss of the privilege of the Lord’s Supper, involvement in church business meetings and other sanctions as judged appropriate by the congregation and/or elders.” I will reiterate the concerns I stated earlier. I do not believe the elders should have the authority to unilaterally suspend or withdraw from a member. We need to fix our constitutions at this point. Another concern is that our constitution needs to be more precise and clear concerning these categories of discipline. Lord willing, the elders will propose amendments in the not-too-distant future  

The point is this: in cases wherein a church member is walking in a disorderly way and remains unrepentant after being admonished, it is appropriate for the church to note that brother or sister and withdraw from them. The unrepentant disorderly walker is not to be associated with. This means they are to be barred from the Lord’s Table and from Christian fellowship until repentance is expressed. But these disorderly persons are not to be regarded as enemies, but warned as brothers or sisters in Christ. This is because of the nature of their sin. Though they are living in a disorderly, sinful, and foolish manner, they have not yet undermined the credibility of their profession in the eyes of the church. 

Not only do I believe this is the meaning of this text, but I have also encountered situations where I think this approach would be most appropriate. Believers sometimes walk in a disorderly way. They need to be called to repentance and disciplined, but they are to be admonished as brothers and sisters in Christ. 

Excommunication

We have considered censure, suspension, and withdrawal. We come now to excommunication. What is excommunication?

It is the casting out of a member of the church, such that they are no longer considered a brother or sister in Christ. They are to be regarded “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17, ESV). In excommunication, they are to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of their sinful flesh (1 Corinthians 5:5). The hope remains that they will repent so that their “spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 5:5, ESV).

Who is to be excommunicated? In brief, it is those who destroy the credibility of their profession of faith by holding to erroneous doctrines that evert (undermine) the foundation of the faith, or by unholy living (see Second London Confession 26.2).  

The symmetry should be obvious to all. Who is to be received into the church through baptism and admitted to the Lord’s Table? Those who make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ? And who is to be removed from the membership of the church and barred from the Lord’s Table? Those who go on to destroy the credibility of the profession of faith they once made.

Our constitution speaks of excommunication in Article V, Section V. “If public censure and the above-mentioned aspects of corrective discipline fail, the congregation shall have a right to excommunicate from membership such persons by an affirmative vote of the majority of the members present and voting (Matthew 18:17; I Corinthians 5:1-13).” 

Matthew 18:15-20 tells us that those who persist in private sin are to be excommunicated. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 teaches us to move speedily towards excommunication when the sin is heinous, public, and there is no repentance. Galatians 1:8-9 requires that heretics be cast out of the church— “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8–9, ESV). Titus 3:10 teaches that those who stir up division within the church are to be excommunicated — “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10–11, ESV).

Only the local church has the power to excommunicate. When the elders recommend and the church consents to excommunicate a member, a minister is to pronounce a judgment like this: 

“That [so and so] being guilty of great iniquity, and not manifesting unfeigned repentance, but refusing to hear the church, I do in the name, and by the authority of Christ committed unto me as pastor of this this church, pronounce and declare that he is to be, and is hereby excommunicated, excluded, or cast out of the congregation, and no longer to be owned a brother, or a member of this church; and this for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (Keach, The Glory Of A True Church, 42-43)

[[I hope it is clear to you what excommunication is. I would like to briefly address a couple of common questions regarding excommunication.  

In 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, Pauls says, “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Corinthians 5:9–11, ESV). My question is this: What does Paul mean when he says, “not even to eat with such a one”? Clearly, this must mean that we are not to eat the Lord’s Supper with the person. But does Paul mean more than this?

Listen to what Jonathan Edwards says: 

“Particularly, we are forbidden such a degree of associating ourselves with them, as there is in making them our guests at our tables, or in being their guests at their tables; as is manifest in the text, where we are commanded to have no company with them, no not to eat. That this respects not eating with them at the Lord’s supper, but a common eating, is evident by the words, that the eating here forbidden, is one of the lowest degrees of keeping company, which are forbidden. Keep no company with such an one, saith the apostle, no not to eat: as much as to say, no not in so low a degree as to eat with him. But eating with him at the Lord’s supper, is the very highest degree of visible Christian communion. Who can suppose that the apostle meant this, Take heed and have no company with a man, no not so much as in the highest degree of communion that you can have? Besides, the apostle mentions this eating as a way of keeping company which, however, they might hold with the heathen. He tells them, not to keep company with fornicators; then he informs them, he means not with fornicators of this world, that is, the heathens; but, saith he, ‘if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. with such an one keep no company, no not to eat.’ This makes it most apparent, that the apostle doth not mean eating at the Lord’s table; for so, they might not keep company with the heathens, any more than with an excommunicated person.” (Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 119).

The meaning is this: Christians should not continue to have fellowship or keep company with those who have been excommunicated for persisting in sin.  That these excommunicated persons should not be permitted to come to the Lord’s Table or to join the church in her fellowship meals is obvious. More than this, Christians must not continue to have Christian fellowship our friendship with excommunicated persons as if nothing had changed. 

A little later, Edwards raises another common question. “What kindness and respect may and ought to be shown to such persons?”  He answers: 

“There are some things by which the members of the church are obliged to show kindness to them; and these things are chiefly, to pray for them, and to admonish them.—And the common dutes and offices of humanity ought to be performed towards them; such as relieving them when they are sick, or under any other distress; allowing them those benefits of human society, and that help, which are needful for the support and defence of their lives and property.—The dutes of natural and civil relations are still to be performed towards them. Excommunication doth not release children from the obligation of duty to their parents, nor parents from parental affection and care toward their children. Nor are husbands and wives released from the duties proper to their relation. And so of all other less relations, whether natural, domestic, or civil.” (Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 119-120)

This is very helpful. Excommunicated persons are not to be completely shunned or treated harshly, much less, unjustly. Christians may show kindness and compassion to excommunicated persons. But it cannot be that things go on as usual. When the person was a member of the church, they enjoyed sweet fellowship with you, and you with them. You called them brother or sister, and so they addressed you in return. But when a person is excommunicated, all of that changes. Though you may eat with the non-believer who never professed faith in Christ, Paul says that we are not to enjoy table fellowship with the one who has been excommunicated. You say, but it is my husband who was excommunicated. Be a good wife to him. Cook for him and eat with him as his wife. You say, but it was my father or mother who was excommunicated. Be a good daughter or son. Love them, honor them, and eat with them as a son or daughter should.  Paul’s point is that excommunication brings about a great change in church relations, and that change must be appropriately expressed in all our relations with an excommunicated person.]]

Exclussion

We have answered the question, what is excommunication? And now we ask, what is exclusion?

Our constitution speaks of exclusion in Article IV,, Section 13 under the heading, Termination of Membership: Exclusion: “If a member in good standing relocates to another church without resigning their membership or requesting a letter of transfer, or if a member is habitually absent from the fellowship of this church without just cause for more than six weeks, they may be excluded from the membership of the church at the discretion of the elders.” 

Again, I’m concerned that our constitution gives too much power to the eldership here. The exclusion of members ought to have the consent of the congregation. Also, our constitution is not clear concerning what exclusion is.  

Historically, exclusion has been called a mixed-excommunication. It is called mixed-excommunication, because it originally proceeds from, and consists in, the act of the brother himself, and is the formality of his offence; upon which proceeds the just and inviolable [absolute and unalterable] act of the church. 

It’s a simple concept. Sometimes people simply walk away from the church. There is no need to put them out because they have sinfully departed on their own accord. Nevertheless, the church must act to bring clarity to the situation. We do not call this excommunication, for excommunication is the church putting out a member. We call this exclusion because it is an acknowledgement that someone has put themselves out of the church, and a declaration that they will be kept out (excluded), unless there is repentance.

When someone walks away from the church and departs for the world, the situation is rather clear-cut. They are to be excluded. But what should be done in a situation where a Christian unduly separates themself from one church and joins another church in a disorderly way?

Listen to what Benjamin Keach says:

“This I find is generally asserted by all Congregational divines, or worthy men, i.e. that no person hath power to dismember himself: i.e. he cannot, without great sin, translate himself from one church to another; but ought to have a dismission from that church where he is a member: provided that church is orderly constituted, nothing being wanting as to any essential of salvation; or of church communion: But if not, yet he ought to endeavor to get his orderly dismission.

Nor is every small difference in some points of religion (or notions of little moment) any grounds for him to desire his dismission.

That he cannot, nor ought not to translate himself, see what a reverend writer saith [Keach then quotes Isaac Chauncy, The Doctrine Which is According To Godliness, 337]:

He cannot, saith he, for many reasons [Chauncy lists 16 reasons. I’ll highlight a few]:

‘1. It is not decent, much less an orderly going away; but very unmannerly, and a kind of running away:

2. Such a departure is not approved of in families, or civil societies [Philippians 1:27; Titus 2:10].

3. It destroys the relation of pastor and people: For what may be done by one individual person, may be done by all.

4. What liberty in this kind belongs to the sheep, belongs to the shepherd; much more he may then also leave his flock at his pleasure, without giving notice or reason thereof to the church.

5. It is breaking covenant with Christ, and with the congregation, and therefore a great immorality; he being under obligation to abide steadfastly with the church; i.e. till the church judge he hath a lawful call to go to another Congregation.

6. It’s a schism.

7. It is a despising of the government of the church.

8. It is a particular member’s assuming to himself the use of the Keys; or rather stealing of them.

…

13. It is like a leak in a ship, which, if not speedily stopped, will sink at last.

14. It tends to anarchy, putting an arbitrary power in every member.

15. It breaks all bonds of love, and raiseth the greatest animosities between brethren and churches.’

…

Keach then asks, “What is the just act of the church, that clothes this irregular separation with the formality, as it were, of an excommunication? A. He answers: (Calling) this a mixt-excommunication…”, that is to say, exclusion. 

Keach then recommends that this judgment of exclusion be pronounced by an elder of the church:

“That A.B. having so and so irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation, we do now adjudge him a non-member, and one that is not to communicate with the church, in the special ordinances of communion, till due satisfaction is given by him. [Mixed excommunication. Romans 9:17-18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; Jude 12]” 

Interestingly, Keach cites 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15 – the text that he used earlier to teach us about withdrawal – as a proof text to justify the removal of someone from the membership who has “irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation” (and attempts to join another church). Do not forget – when the church withdraws from a member, they remain a member. The hope is that they will repent of their disorderly ways and be restored to the full privileges of church membership in the church where they remain a member. But here, Keach cites 2 Thessalonians 3 as a proof text for removing someone from the membership of the church who has “irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation” and has departed, not for the world, but to another congregation. This is the issue that Keach is addressing in this chapter of his book.  It seems to me that Keach is suggesting that these should be excluded from the membership (removed), but according to the principles of 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15. They are to be excluded (removed) from the membership while being admonished and noted. The church is not to associate with them in Christian fellowship, unless there is repentance. But this does not mean we must regard them as enemies. We may continue to admonish them as a brother or sister om Christ.   

Notice that the judgment of exclusion that Keach recommends in this case differs from the one that he recommended in the case of full or direct excommunication. 

In the case of direct excommunication, Keach recommends this judgment: 

“That [so and so] being guilty of great iniquity, and not manifesting unfeigned repentance, but refusing to hear the church, I do in the name, and by the authority of Christ committed unto me as pastor of this this church, pronounce and declare that he is to be, and is hereby excommunicated, excluded, or cast out of the congregation, and no longer to be owned a brother, or a member of this church; and this for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (Keach, The Glory Of A True Church, 42-43)  

Here, in the case of the exclusion of members who have departed from one congregation to another in a disorderly way, he recommends this judgment instead:

“That [so and so] …having irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation, we do now adjudge him a non-member, and one that is not to communicate with the church, in the special ordinances of communion, till due satisfaction is given by him.”

Keach does not say that he is “no longer to be owned a brother”. Also, there is no mention of the person being handed over to Satan ”for the destruction of the flesh”. And this would agree with the principles of the proof text he cites, namely, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15. That text, remember,  is about withdrawing from disorderly walkers: “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, ESV).

You say, pastor, what is your point? Why does this matter? Why are you devoting so much time to this?

Let me tell you why. In our day and age, it is not uncommon for Christians to depart from one congregation to join another. And to be clear, it is not forbidden to leave one church and to join another. There may be good reasons for such a transition. And to be clear, even if the reasons the person gives for wanting are questionable, I do believe that a church (with the elders in the lead) ought to, if at all possible, be willing to dismiss the to another church if they insist on departing (see Chauncy, The Doctrine Which Is According To Godliness, page 341 and following). The church is not a prison! Christians have the liberty to choose which church they will join for their edification! But members ought to seek their dismissal. They must not simply depart. They must not run away. They must be faithful to their membership vows and the covenant they made with the other members. When church members depart for no good reason at all or when they run away from problems without seeking their dismissal, great harm is done to the church. It is hurtful to the church. It breaks the bonds of love. It causes division. We cannot ignore this sin and disorder. 

But what shall we do with these members who have departed in an a disorderly and sinful way? What shall we do with them once they have been exhorted to return, and yet show that they have no intention of returning? 

Shall they forever remain as members of our church? That cannot be. 

Shall we simply remove them from our membership and neglect the duty that we have to discipline disorderly persons? That cannot be either. We must obey Christ. We must discipline in obedience to the Scriptures “for the glory of God, the welfare and purity of the church [this church and all true churches], and the restoration and spiritual growth of the offender” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V. Section 1).

Those who leave the church in a sinful and disorderly way must be admonished to return, at the very least, to seek their orderly dismissal. And if they will not return, but run away to another church, they must be excluded from the membership. 

But how should we think of these? How should we regard them? Should we regard them as non-believers and as enemies of the cross of Christ (Matthew 18)? Should we exclude them and hand them over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in the hopes that they repent so that their spirit may be saved on the last day (1 Corinthians 5)? Or should we regard them as brethren who are walking in a disorderly manner (2 Thessamonians 3)?

I say, it depends. It depends on how they departed. I do believe the church (with the elders in the lead) has the freedom and ability to come to conclusions and to render judgments in these matters. I think we may distinguish between those who have departed the church in such a way that they have destroyed the credibility of their profession of faith and those who have departed as disorderly persons who ought to be withdrawn from and admonished as brothers and sisters. 

The key question is, has the person destroyed the credibility of their profession of faith in the way they have departed? Perhaps they have! Perhaps they have departed for the world. Or perhaps they have run off to another church while slandering their brethren and bringing great division to the church they have left. If such is the case, they should be excluded and not owned as brethren, given their unrepentant sin. But perhaps they have not destroyed the credibility of their profession. Perhaps they have simply acted in an immature, foolish, and disorderly way. If this is the opinion of the congregation (with the elders in the lead), then it is best to remove them from membership while not regarding them as an enemy, but warning them as a brother, that is to say, by noting them and withdrawing from them according to the principles found in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.

In cases such as this, the judgment that Keach recommends is sufficient:  

“That [so and so] …having irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation, we do now adjudge him a non-member, and one that is not to communicate with the church, in the special ordinances of communion, till due satisfaction is given by him.”

Whatever church the individual attempts to run off to ought to respect this judgment by admonishing the brother or sister to repent, and by refusing to receive them into their communion until due satisfaction is given.  And if another church decides to receive them (as is often the case these days), we take comfort in the promise of Christ that, so long as we have not erred in our judgments, “whatever [we] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever [we] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18, ESV). Christ Jesus, the Lord and Chief Shepherd of the chuch will judge between us. 

Conclusion

I’ll conclude now with a few very brief suggestions for application.

One, know that church discipline is a vital part of Christian discipleship and is required of every true church of Jesus Christ. If you are a disciple of Jesus, you must be a member of a local church. And as a member of a local church, you are subject to the discipline of that church. This is a very good thing, and you must know this. 

Two, as a member, not only are you subject to the discipline of the church for the good of your soul, but you must also participate in formal church discipline when called upon to do so. “Tell it to the church”, Matthew 18  says. It does not say tell it to the elders, but tell it to the church. In 1 Corinthians 5,  it is the church that is called to excommunicate the unrepentant sinner. In 2 Thessalonians 3, it is the church that is called to withdraw from the disorderly walker. Church members must participate in a way that is appropriate to their position in the church in formal church discipline cases.  

Three, while it is true that the members must participate in formal church discipline, the elders must lead. Oftentimes, the elders will have invested many, many hours into church discipline cases before the matter is even brought to the attention of the church. The members must respect the authority that Christ has given to the elders to oversee and to lead in the government of the church. 

Four, when conducting church discipline, all must proceed in a spirit of humility with patience and gentleness. “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:1–2, ESV) 

Five, when the church renders judgments to withdraw from, excommunicate, or exclude sinners, we must know that there is power in the judgment (provided that we have not erred), for Christ has given this power to the church, saying, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matthew 18:18–20, ESV).  Church discipline must be conducted seriously and solemnly, therefore.