We Do Not Excommunicate We Exclude

[Haruo]

Originally posted by rsr:
You're entirely right, Kiffin. They mean the same thing.

The difference is that the Roman Church has a whole series of excommunications. There is no single "excommunication" under church law: it can range from private to public, from denying church offices to near-total shunning in society and has different effects on rulers and subjects.

Baptist churches have different levels of exclusion, too, don't we? Can't a church, for instance, decide that a person is no longer (say by virtue of divorce or sex-change) allowed to exercise the office of pastor, or deacon, say, or even be excluded from some less Scripturally defined role like Nursery Attendant, yet not bar the person from the Lord's Supper?

Haruo

 

[Bro. James Reed]

(say by virtue of divorce or sex-change)

Where did that come from???

We, as Primitive Baptists, hold only one type of exclusion. That is, if an offense going against Biblical practice is carried out, and that member will not repent, then they are excluded from the membership of the church. This includes the Lord's Supper, foot-washing, and voting.

Now, some, if not most, will exclude the member, then they will follow the gospel steps in Matt. 18 to restore that person to the church. Personally, I would rather labor with my offending brother or sister, and then take all of the steps toward exclusion, but that is just me.

Now, I don't believe there is any sin that would disallow you to be reinstated to membership, upon confession and repentance. If that was the case, every church would be completely empty. Let's not forget, Jesus told us that, if we look upon a woman lustfully, we have already committed adultery in our hearts. How many of us could say we have NEVER done this?

Now, I think we should all go through daily repentance for the sins which we've committed, and the sins which we did not realize we committed. May God help each of us to be stronger and withstand temptation.

God Bless. Bro. James

 

[JamesJ]

Here's an example of the subject of this thread in action:

Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent
A Weekly Standard Exclusive: The Senate minority leader is ordered to stop calling himself a Catholic.
by J. Bottum
04/17/2003 12:00:00 PM

TOM DASCHLE may no longer call himself a Catholic. The Senate minority leader and the highest ranking Democrat in Washington has been sent a letter by his home diocese of Sioux Falls, sources in South Dakota have told The Weekly Standard, directing him to remove from his congressional biography and campaign documents all references to his standing as a member of the Catholic Church.
This isn't exactly excommunication--which is unnecessary, in any case, since Daschle made himself ineligible for communion almost 20 years ago with his divorce and remarriage to a Washington lobbyist. The directive from Sioux Falls' Bishop Robert Carlson is rather something less than excommunication--and, at the same time, something more: a declaration that Tom Daschle's religious identification constitutes, in technical Catholic vocabulary, a grave public scandal. He was brought up as a Catholic, and he may still be in some sort of genuine mental and spiritual relation to the Church. Who besides his confessor could say? But Daschle's consistent political opposition to Catholic teachings on moral issues--abortion, in particular--has made him such a problem for ordinary churchgoers that the Church must deny him the use of the word "Catholic."

[Entire Article Here]

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Personally, I've always like the Quaker terminology:

Someone is Read out of Meeting

 

[stubbornkelly]

Although, people are rarely "read of out meeting" anymore. And even back "in the day," someone who had been read out of meeting could not participate in the meeting for business. Meeting for worship and all other fellowship was not restricted. Some more separated meetings may have done more than that, but for the most part, that was it. More strutured shunning was and is left to the Amish, not the Friends. And still, reading someone out of meeting is reserved for unrepentant people, following the process of church discipline.

If a person is unrepentant, then such exclusion is not unwarranted. In such a case, the person has, themselves, made a choice to refuse righteousness and take the wrong road. We are to be available to them when they come back on the right road, but if not, they've made a choice

Personally, any church that would read me out of meeting, or exclude me in light of my repentence and restored walk with God, well, I wouldn't want to be in such a place anyway. Bottom line, no great loss, except for the people doing the excluding.

Oh, I wanted to go back to the examples given. If the reason we employ church discipline is because of habitual sin, then if, in the two cases above, the sin is not continued after it is called out and repented of, there is no reason the disciplined people cannot be restored to fellowship. It may be hard for the others in the church, having dealt with the issues leading up to the discipline, and the whole church may have to do some (a lot of) readjusting and trust building, but it can and should be done.

 

[Frogman]

Here is an url I received from Historic Baptist e-mail list. It is a link to a study by J.R. Graves. I have not read it yet but thought it may be pertinent.

http://www.saveunet.com/everlasting/JRGraves.html

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[tyndale1946]

Brother Dallas I cannot speak for anyone else but the site comes up but I can't get any of the articles... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Glen,

Try this url:

http://dallasii0.tripod.com/missionarylandmarkbaptist/id16.html

The earlier site worked from my e-mail box, when I read your post I tried it again, but it failed. I removed it from the e-mail file and saved it in my documents--it is 44 pages. I moved it as is and have not read it, just in bits as I copied it, seems ok. I generally like J.R. Graves, but he is Baptist and so am I, so I am sure we wouldn't agree on something . If anyone does read the article and finds any errors, mistakes, or repetitions please do not attribute this to Bro. Graves, but to Bro. Dallas. I merely lifted the work as I received it and have not proof-read it for any errors, I also did it hurriedly, I am certain I did not leave any out that I had access to, but I may have "double" copied something. If so forgive me. Enjoy reading, discussing and agreeing to not agree. Talk to you guys next Tue. night.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

(BTW, don't fry any Easter eggs, I tried this once and they melted. )

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Brother Dallas I cannot speak for anyone else but the site comes up but I can't get any of the articles... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

In this case, Glen, you may speak for me! Same experience.

Haruo