How should disfellowshipping have been handled

[onesimus (onesimus)]

<font size="-1">We regret to announce that John Doe has been put out of the church. Please have no fellowship with him.</font>

This is my best recollection of what the CC bulletin use to say. The notice was then followed by several Scripture references, which may or may not have applied - eg. "withdraw yourself from every brother that walks disorderly."

The bulletin should have specified why the person was being disfellowshipped - fornication?...creating scism?...undermining the leadership?...failure to bathe?, etc.

Had this principle been followed, one might have read the following in the church bulletin:

<font size="-1">John and Jane Doe have been given space to comply with our church's policy on smoking and drinking. After several months of working with them, they are still not in compliance.

One of our elders, Lenny Pearson, was recently in Hawaii with Joe Gluts' wife, Susie. They observed John and Jane drinking wine with their dinner. John was also seen lighting a cigar.

These sort of activities reflect badly on our church. Therefore, we regret to announce that John and Jane Doe have been put out of the church.

Please have no fellowship with them.</font>

[onesimus (onesimus)]

Or this:

<font size="-1">The pastor had an itsy bitsy illicit relationship with a young woman in the church. Frank Wright overheard a private conversation in which the pastor admonished the young woman not to tell anyone about the matter.

Frank won't just obey the pastor and let love cover a multitude of sins. He insists that "let fornication not be named once among you" has some sort of special meaning for pastors.

We regret that Frank's potential threat to the stability of this church necessitates that he be put out of the church. Please have no fellowship with him.</font>

[onesimus (onesimus)]

I originally put this under the existing thread "we regret to announce." When that thread remained way down the board, I deleted it and created a new thread. Now the "we regret to announce" thread has moved to the top, either as a delayed reaction to my now deleted post, or due to mo's post.

I don't seem to understand the system.

[steve (steve)]

Onesimus,

I've been thinking about this for a few days. In any study of the Chapel, the way it practiced disfellowshipping does deserve a closer look. Even before connections came along, and the wide-spread controversy and unrest that resulted, the frequency of disfellowshipping was quite remarkable. No other church or denomination of which I've been a member has had anywhere near the Chapel's rate.

I will have to say, though, that in the few other cases I have seen, the reasons are not usually publicly divulged and any announcement of it has been about the same as the Chapel's - usually even less was said than the usual Chapel bulletin announcement said.

Interestingly, I was disfellowshipped from one of the Pentecostal churches that I joined some years after Community Chapel had collapsed, or at least had my membership formally terminated by the leadership. This was Silver Lake Chapel. The membership form which I had signed there had a clause in it that said if one went six months without attending a service, one's membership would be terminated.

Sure enough, almost six months to the day after I had stopped attending there (in order to start checking out non-Pentecostal churches, the first time I had done that since before my Chapel years), I received a letter from the associate pastor informing me of the termination of my membership for non-attendance. There was never any public announcement made of my membership termination.

I was extremely surprised because I had forgotten about that clause, because I couldn't figure out how they knew it had been exactly six months since I had last attended a service, and because there had been no attempt made to contact me to find out my reasons for not attending services or if I really intended to quit the church. I hadn't made an issue out of my disagreements or out of my leaving and if I would have remembered the non-attendance clause I would have been glad to instead send them a polite letter requesting release from my membership. Some of my reasons had to do with that particular church and some had to do with Pentecostalism in general, but I was never vocal or confrontational about my dissatisfaction with the church - I simply had decided to stop going to a Pentecostal church and to try attending non-Pentecostal churches as a trial.

Though I did eventually join another church (an Evangelical Covenant Church - this was in 1996, years before I became interested in the Lutheran Church), I think that when I got the termination letter I had not officially become a member of another church yet. The pastors of Silver Lake Chapel must have either figured it out from when my offering checks stopped, or heard about it via word of mouth through the one or two people at the church to whom I had mentioned it briefly.

In any case, by the time the letter came I really did not care about it one way or another. My main reaction was amusement. It was just another rather strange chapter in my experience with Pentecostalism. Just a year or two later, in fact, the associate pastor who signed the letter became dissatisfied with Silver Lake Chapel himself and left to start his own church, although in his case I am pretty sure he retained Pentecostal beliefs.

But to get back to the main subject, the frequency of disfellowshipping at the Chapel was the really unusual and suspicious thing. As in most other churches, disfellowshipping could come from several causes: 1) willful, persistent moral violations 2) open, vocal disagreement with the doctrine taught by the church, or 3) some other violation of some part of a formal membership agreement, as in my case at Silver Lake Chapel.

I don't think any of these by themselves are wrong for a church to implement. Part of the reason for the frequency of disfellowshipping at the Chapel, however, was undoubtedly due to the more detailed and more strictly enforced moral standards taught there. In a word, it revealed the Chapel to be more legalistic than most other churches.

On top of that, the Chapel was a lot more serious about its doctrine than most other churches, so it probably disfellowshipped more of its members for advocating teaching that ran contrary to what Don taught. Don insisted upon exercising his control to a greater degree than most other pastors.

These are my own thoughts about disfellowshipping. Comments?

[onesimus (onesimus)]

bump

[calv (calv)]

Just another tool .... used for all the wrong reasons.
When you look back on how it was used how can anyone " in their right mind" not stop and ask was anything what it was made out to be? Of course its easier to just hide behind the old beliefs ..... the wonder working mirical power that only those who are willing to pay the price can see. You have to have the ultimate faith to hear God's voice, travel to the ends of the earth to see the miricals he does. He only moves among these select few! Funny how many differant variaties of the select few there are! Those who can't deal with reality make a hyper spiritual move of God to hide behind and empower themselfs.
The emperor has no clothes! Yet there are still those who belive anyway!????!

[onesimus (onesimus)]

My earlier facetiousness aside, I believe that the reasons for disfellowshipping should be given.

Not the lurid details, but if I am being asked to have no fellowship with a brother, a reason should be given.

Paul gave reasons. Don't eat with a "brother" who is a fornicator. This presupposes that the fact that he is fornicating is known.

Leadership needs the authority to excommunicate, but there must be a check on that power.

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear (1 Tim 5:20) The context is elders, but the principle is openness, and respect for God's laws.

Rather than encouraging speculation and gossip by some unexplained notice of disfellowship, better to give a general explanation of the reason. This diminishes the opportunity for authoritarian leaders to oust people who might call them to account for their sins.

[onesimus (onesimus)]

If you attend a church for the first time, and read in the bulletin that Barthalomew has been disfellowshipped for eating BLT's and smoking cigars while watching TV, you might decide that such a church is not a good fit for you.

[movinon (movinon)]

One,

You said, "Rather than encouraging speculation and gossip by some unexplained notice of disfellowship, better to give a general explanation of the reason. This diminishes the opportunity for authoritarian leaders to oust people who might call them to account for their sins."

Two very good reasons why there should be some sort of explanation when disfellowshipping actually happens. Also, I believe that this method of dealing with people should never be used lightly, as it can truly wound someone who doesn't really deserve to have such a drastic action leveled against them.

The threat of being disfellowshipped was a tool used by the chapel, I believe, to keep us all in line. Social support systems are extremely important things for all humans...without them we get sick easier, don't recover as fast, are more vulnerable to all kinds of emotional distress....so, for a church or any organization to use such a tool against someone in a flippant or unnecessary way is more of a crime than some of the things for which people were disfellowshipped .

mo