Featured Church discipline

Certainly. We needs to cast the wolves out of our midst.

 

It is important to remember that the goal of any confrontation is repentance and restoration. There should be a concerted effort to correct bad theology and misunderstandings of Scripture. It is important to note whether the area of disagreement is worth messing with. In the case of theology supporting sin, as is the case in the OP, it must be addressed. We must be careful to not allow sin to be taught in SS, Bible studies, or from the pulpit.

 

Good question!

Does ones view on those issues raise up to levels of heresy/need to booted out of the church?

Same as deniel of jesus as God, Messiah, deny saved by grace ?

 

I agree with you. If a member holds to a heresy and you know about it, they by definition they aren't being silent about it. You know about it, so they are speaking about it. That member needs to be dealt with.

 

just what would be considered a heresy in your church?

 

It depends on the situation and what they've done or what they do with their beliefs that are contrary to God's word.

Example: I was a member of a church that had a young man in his early 20's who didn't believe in using soap and water on his stinky body. The stench was so bad that visitors said they wouldn't be back.

The pastor had a talk with him and got nowhere. Then he had the man before the deacons, and that did no good. The next step was to bring him before the congregation, but he still refused to bathe. He said, "You have no right to tell me I have to bathe." He was given the choice of cleaning his nasty, stinky body or leaving; he chose to leave.

We had a woman who was teaching her Sunday school class to speak in tongues, which the church didn't teach or believe necessary. She also chose to leave.

People who call themselves Christians should live it before others. Having beliefs contrary to the truth of God's word is one thing, but teaching them in a Sunday school class is unacceptable. If they continue hearing the truth of God's word and that certain beliefs are not scriptural, they might eventually realize that they had been believing a lie.

Refusing to accept the truth and change according to God's will is also unacceptable. Saying "I'm a Christian" and living like the devil is unacceptable and should be dealt with according to scripture that teaches that the steps for discipline are (1) The offender is talked to by the pastor alone. If that does no good, then (2) The pastor includes the deacons in the matter. If the offender still refuses to change, the last step is to take them before the church congregation and given a last chance to do something about whatever the problem is or leave until they are willing to abide by God's word.

 

Would one's position (one way or the other) on KJVO be considered heresy?

 

I really don't think that we should get into a debate (on this thread) regarding what is or what is not heresy.

Let's approach the topic assuming a member is in support of a position that is clearly against the church's published position.

So, in regards to KJVO, yes, if you have a member of a KJVO church that is openly against KJVO, they should practice church discipline with that member.

 

Giving meds to a person with mental illness. :laugh:

 

I think the follow-on questions here have to be: Once you've "church disciplined" someone (which I believe is necessary, by the way), they are now considered a "non-member" of that church.

So what happens if they continue coming?

(most folks, as evidenced by the examples previously given, probably wouldn't; but what if?)

And what about continued contact with the individual? I mean, I'm not sure that someone not bathing would classify as a heretic, or heathen or publican, and therefore Titus 3:10 nor Matthew 18:17 seem to apply to that particular situation.

Moreover, if the individual, after receiving church discipline, continues to place him/herself in the church services, showing a willingness to hear the Word of God, do we prohibit that?

 

Agreed. At that point they are coming to the church simply to cause problems.

 

Not sure I agree with the analogy. Seems like it would be better to say that you booted the kids out of the house, and won't let them back in. Legally, you could then be charged with child neglect or even endangerment.

As for the trespassing charge -- not sure that would fly, if the individual isn't causing any ruckus or otherwise being a disturbance. At the point that the church starts enforcing "private ownership" type behavior, they endanger their public and non-profit status.

Finally, take a look at what you previously agreed to: that the goal should be restoration. Would you really deny them the opportunity to hear more of God's Word, forcing them to go somewhere else--where possibly they'll hear heresy instead of truth?