disfellowshiping members

[Gail]

I think something has been mentioned about the spirit of the person who is a candidate for disfellowship.

I would think it would be for open rebellion. I envision an openly rebellious person as someone who is too proud to listen to anyone. Communication is only one way, with or without threats or coercion, to the danger of others. Maybe in an instance of a person accepting a cult worship and then trying to come back to prosetylize (sp?). It has happened so rarely to people that I have known that it's hard for me to think of an example.

Hopefully your church is run by decent people whom you can trust to disfellowship only after all other avenues to reach out in help and love have failed.

If your church is run by a despot who is surrounded by his personal bouncers, heaven help you!

[Woody]

Personally ... I don't trust my membership in the hands of a few members who might or might not be Spirit lead. Just a very few people who might show up to a church meeting to decide whether you remain an SDA? Wow !!

We kicked out a member in a former church of mine with the vote of some 25 members out of 650 .

Now that deserves a big Hmmmmm.

[Neil D]

Disfellowshiped? Or your name taken off the books? Peoples names are taken off the books if they stop attending church. That is not being disfellowshipped.

Disfellowshiped is done when a person apostates like leaves the church and gets drunk and or uses illegal drugs or some other public apostate action.

So, when young adventists get drunk, and smash the car while they are teens, after having been baptised when they were just 12-14, if they are put in the newspaper as having done that drunken deed, and church members read it, then disfellowship him, it is a justifiable act of the church because the church must remain pure....Is that reflecting what you are saying Cyberguy?

If a church disfellowships someone for the above actions, and don't realize that the teen has just lost his girlfriend in an automobile accident, or was even dumped by his girlfriend, and decided to get drunk and then drive home, does this color your perception of what is happening? does it still warrent a disfellowship? What if after 33 years of marriage, the last 12 having turned abusive between the couple, don't you think that a loving touch would be wanted? Psychologists tell us that one of the things most missed after death or divorce, is touch.

So, if a couple divorces by mutual agreement, then he [why is it always the male counterpart?] finds an old girlfriend [from before the marriage], and finds that they still love one another, she moves in [why is it that SHE always moves in with him?] and they do it BEFORE the final settlement, and then he marries 2 weeks after the final settlement...and a week after the church votes to disfellowship him....Is that scenario worthy of disfellowship?

John..? Gerry...? The stygma of disfellowship is there. and no matter how "loving" the elders are, the affected/willful person has a bruised ego and accutely aware of someone coming to him with some sort of authority coming to 'tell him what he's got to do" to be reinstated into the church.... Does a church have authority, since it is to restore and heal a person back to Christ, to make the decision for an adulterer? a drunkard? especially when there is evidence that they are trying to come back to Christ?

[Neil D]

PS John, those texts you gave....I can argue that those texts are not applicable toward the church manuel regarding disipline...IOWs, the church manual is wrong in disfellowshiping a person based upon the texts that you put down....

[John317]

John..? Gerry...? The stygma of disfellowship is there. and no matter how "loving" the elders are, the affected/willful person has a bruised ego and accutely aware of someone coming to him with some sort of authority coming to 'tell him what he's got to do" to be reinstated into the church.... Does a church have authority, since it is to restore and heal a person back to Christ, to make the decision for an adulterer? a drunkard? especially when there is evidence that they are trying to come back to Christ?

Example:

One of my sisters--she's a member here, by the way, and is OK with my telling this-- was disfellowshipped, along with her husband, who was still married to another woman. He had gone to an SDA pastor for counseling on what he should do. His conscience bothered him. The pastor had told him to leave my sister alone. Instead of leaving her alone, they both went off to Reno and got married. The local church they attended disfellowshipped them.

The upshot was that they moved out of state and were baptized and joined another SDA church. He died years later as an SDA in good standing and repentant for his sins, and my sister is now a very strong SDA and a deaconess in the church.

She would be the first to tell you that she and her husband-to-be deserved being disfellowshipped. They'd openly, deliberately and stubbornly refused to follow what they knew to be right.

I don't think a bruised ego is a very important issue here. I think the more important thing to keep in mind is that if a person who is cherishing sin doesn't sincerely repent of their sins and allow Christ to be the Lord of their life, they will be eternally lost.

Another important point I'd make here is that no one should be disfellowshipped without being labored for and prayed with. If someone shows that they are are repentant, are communicating well with the local church, and show they want to do what's right, I think in most cases they shouldn't be disfellowshipped.

The church certainly has the authority according to the Bible. Since it has the authority to decide that people are ready to be baptized and be accepted as a member, the church also has authority to decide if someone should be excluded from membership. The church isn't deciding anyone's salvation, nor is it saying the person can't worship with the church.

Your thoughts?

[John317]

Are you saying, then, that you believe the Bible contains no good evidence for the church's authority to disfellowhip anyone for anything?

[Neil D]

Your sister proves my point...

She and her new husband "came to themselves"....IOWs, the Lord chasten and rebuked them...[and yes, I am willing to hold the Lord to His end of the promise]

They knew what they did was wrong...At the time that they got married, they went to Reno, and GOT MARRIED ...I don't know if they did a bit of "hanky-panky" [nor do I want to offend either you or your sister] but they got married to make it right.

It can be argued that the church was upset at trying to reach this couple, and since it couldn't, disfellowshiped them.

The stygma of disfellowship is there....No matter how you slice this scenerio, the church comes out as having the attitude of authority[some would say "bully"] rather than guidance, healing AND restoration.

Quote:

The church certainly has the authority according to the Bible. Since it has the authority to decide that people are ready to be baptized and be accepted as a member, the church also has authority to decide if someone should be excluded from membership. The church isn't deciding anyone's salvation, nor is it saying the person can't worship with the church

I am sorry, but the church has the right to allow someone to be baptized, and if the consequences of baptism is the loss of a job, or even possible harm, the church has the obligation and the duty to protect and help this person make a livelihood and provide a safe place to live. But when it comes to marriage, that is an individual decision, not one to affect the church directly.

And yet, the church demands that it is able to even control marriage.Yet, I do not see that in the Bible. I do see where the bible says that the church is an institution of healing and restoration, even guidance....but not authority/control over lives.

[Neil D]

Are you saying, then, that you believe the Bible contains no good evidence for the church's authority to disfellowhip anyone for anything?

From the evidence that you provided earlier, the answer is no.

[John317]

How about the rest of the Bible? Do you see any evidence anywhere?

I think a study of ecclesiology shows that the church has the responsibility to do it under certain circumstances. Open sin and rebellion against God and the church causes great harm, and the illustration of Achan shows that God holds the entire church responsible for the sins of individuals, particularly when known sins are allowed to continue without any effort to stop it. I don't believe God can bless a church the way He wants to when the church is allowing the open practice of sin to continue.

[John317]

... After all ... we have to protect the spotless "image" of the church. Ha Ha

I believe that caring deeply about the "image" of Christ's body, the church, is only natural for those who love Christ.

Ellen White says that only those who are weeping and praying urgently to God about the sins in the church will be sealed by God's seal and receive the Latter Rain.

[John317]

They knew what they did was wrong...At the time that they got married, they went to Reno, and GOT MARRIED ...I don't know if they did a bit of "hanky-panky" [nor do I want to offend either you or your sister] but they got married to make it right.

It didn't make it right, though. It made it wrong. He married her while married to another woman who was the mother of his children. In other words, it was adultery and fornication, both before the marriage and afterwards. It was not a secret but was widely known in the church at that time. I can't see how we can think that under the circumstances the church should take no action. It was the same as thumbing their noses in public at Christ and the church.

Quote:

It can be argued that the church was upset at trying to reach this couple, and since it couldn't, disfellowshiped them.

Some might make that argument, but it would be purely conjectural and, in this case, without any foundation.

[phkrause]

John you make some really good points. And so did Shane. And I think that disfellowshiping should be a very careful procedure and not taken lightly. I don't I've ever witnessed this in any church I've been a member of. And like CyberGuy mentioned, there has been many more people taken off the books than anything else. At least in the years that I've been a member of the Adventist church.

pk

[Neil D]

How about the rest of the Bible? Do you see any evidence anywhere?

I think a study of ecclesiology shows that the church has the responsibility to do it under certain circumstances. Open sin and rebellion against God and the church causes great harm, and the illustration of Achan shows that God holds the entire church responsible for the sins of individuals, particularly when known sins are allowed to continue without any effort to stop it. I don't believe God can bless a church the way He wants to when the church is allowing the open practice of sin to continue.[ /quote]

Ok, you make several points that need to be addressed. And I do want to address them.

As to the "rest of the bible, is there any evidence for disfellowshiping", yes. There is.

Paul addresses the case where a man is laying with his stepmother. He, also makes the case where

1] even the world thinks this sort of relationship is not right. IOWs, the standards of the world were better than the healing and restoration of the church.

2] the church had not done ANYTHING about it [my understanding is that they didn't talk to him about it]

3] Overall, it can be said that this type of relationship is very dysfunctional.

Originally Posted By: John317

It didn't make it right, though. It made it wrong. He married her while married to another woman who was the mother of his children. In other words, it was adultery and fornication, both before the marriage and afterwards. It was not a secret but was widely known in the church at that time.

So, let me mirror this back to you. The man, who was married, got involved with your sister. [That is adultery]. BEFORE he ended his first marriage, he married your sister, such that he was practicing bigamy. If that is the case, the greater sin is his, and yes, the church needed to take disfellowship action. Bigamy is a relational dysfunction, and any man who trys to please 2 women at the same time is just...well, stupid. And worse, any 2 women who are married to this type of man, and knows about the other woman, are even more stupid/dysfunctional.

But these situations are extremes, even in the regular world. I don't think that God wants His church to harber extreme relationships that are antagonistic to wholesome/healthy relationships.

And those relationships, where there is a live-in girl/boy friend, should be held up in the membership process. IOWs, if a man and woman are in a single relationship, but they are committed to each other such that they are living together, AND they start coming to church, then their membership should be not be confirmed until they are married. The church should guide and encourage wholesome relationship. That I think we can agree on. It's the "HOW" that becomes difficult to champion.

Originally Posted By: john317

I can't see how we can think that under the circumstances the church should take no action. It was the same as thumbing their noses in public at Christ and the church.

The Lord says "Those whom I love, I will chasten and rebuke." I am willing to let God take care of the condemning of individual and I will hold HIM accountable for bringing people into wholesome relationships.

And I have to admit, there are worse things going on in the world today in which people are "thumbing their noses in public at Christ". It's not like it isn't happening in the world. And I have to admit, God and Christ are still on their thrones. These things are not bringing Christ down.

Originally Posted By: jon317

Quote:

It can be argued that the church was upset at trying to reach this couple, and since it couldn't, disfellowshiped them.

Some might make that argument, but it would be purely conjectural and, in this case, without any foundation.

No, it is not conjectural, but it can be made into social fact. A group of people who band together for a common purpose are going to be committed to that purpose. When an individual finds himself outside that purpose, it is HIS responsibility to remove himself from the group. It is the groups responsibility to encourage him back into the fold. This is known as restoration AND healing. And yes, if it can be found that the individual is at willful cross purposes with the groups foundation,[iOWs, he has grown in such a way that he disagrees with the goals of the group], he can be removed siting those goals that all agree to.

Integrity with all individuals and the group needs to be the goal of all. It is when the individual is hurt, and temporarily at cross purposes of the group and is working to come back to the group. Remember, the prodigal "came to his senses"...This is where we differ... You seem to think that it is ok for the group to remove/kick out the individual. You say that if the group is urging an individual, who is hurting, to heal faster-that is the answer to the groups problems. I say that that is impossible.

So the question is, why does the church want to enforce a standards goal, rather than a restoration and healing goal?

So now, the individual starts playing games. He is comfortable with the goals of the group, and he lets or resigns his affiliation with that specific group, and he goes down the street to another similar group with almost the same goals. The group never learns to heal or restore an individual. And the new church does't learn about healing and restoring that same individual to Christ.

Or in the best case scenerio, he is kicked out of the group. He waits for a year, and then comes back, affirming the goals of the group. The group doesn't learn about restoration, and doesn't learn how to heal the person. The individual plays a game, and the group doesn't learn anything, except to reinforce it's goals.

Or, worst case scenerio he is kicked out of the group and never comes back to the original group. That group never learns how to heal a person, they don't know how to restore a person to his spiritual path.

That is the bottom line in the current Church manual regarding disfellowshiping. Now, consider, and my main caviote [sp], to this scenerio is that the individual is hurting and in the churches view, makes a life changing bad decision. He makes the decision to relieve his hurting. In most cases where there is a divorce, there is already an abusive relationship and many times this abusive relationship goes on for YEARS. And touch is one of the things that humans, who go thru divorce or thru the death of thier spouse, miss the most.

Once the divorce is sure, but not realized as yet, there is a temptation to relieve the loneliness. This is a bad decision. Alone-ness is a good thing, as it helps with the healing process both for the past and for the future. Many do not realize this. I know that I have been slow to come to this.

In any case, it is important to understand the individual and determine the hurt and work with it and the individual. It does help keep one in The Way, so to speak. And I think it is important to be in The Way and stay in The Way [pun intended].

[abelisle]

I wholeheartedly agree. We should be all about restorationSin interfered with and is still interfering with this process.

We need the metanoic experience spoken of in Romans 12:2: ". . .but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Isn't interesting that the Gk. word {meta-nous} is also used for repentance.

It's easy to find fault, condemn and accuse. It's much harder to restore. Just look at your own life. God is working on me everyday!

Alex

[Woody]

"Condemn the sin but not the sinner".

[Renewed_faith]

This is just an open statement not meant towards anyone.

Everyone keeps talking about the fact that the church is (for lack of a better word) pure.

Are people saying that the SDA church is a pure church?

I can not see where any church SDA or not is ever pure.

What makes a church prosper is the people inside the church.

If we are all sinners, which we all are, then how can the church be pure?

No church has a congregation that is pure nor is it devoid of sinfulness. How can we 'protect' our church's outward appearance from being tarnished because we are all sinners? It would seem to me that we should be showing our love for one another through all avenues rather than disfellowshipping the members who do not match up to what we consider churchworthy.

Is not God the one who decides what is on the inside of a person? We never know what the reasons are behind what someone does.

[Woody]

Excellent Post Renewed faith. Good points. The only way that I know that the church can show it is pure is how it treats it's members. How do we treat sinners? How do we treat those without and those within?

You are right. We are not God. Thus, we can judge sinners for we are ALL sinners. What makes one person's sin less than mine?

[Woody]

DISFELLOWSHIPING IS NOW OPEN SEASON FOR ANY AND ALL MEMBERS TO DISFELLOWSHIP EACH OTHER, ACTING ON GOD'S BEHALF. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, DON'T YOU, THAT YOU'RE ALL LITTLE GODS YOURSELFS..

Thank you for participating Rudywoofs. But I wasn't sure what you meant by saying that we are all little Gods ourselves. Could you explain?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

But I wasn't sure what you meant by saying that we are all little Gods ourselves. Could you explain?

I can't explain. I am going off the deep end. sorry.

[Woody]

Praying for you Pam.

[Renewed_faith]

You are right. We are not God. Thus, we can judge sinners for we are ALL sinners. What makes one person's sin less than mine?

I am hoping that you meant we can not judge sinners for we are ALL sinners. teehe

[John317]

[John317]

We are not God. Thus, we can judge sinners for we are ALL sinners. What makes one person's sin less than mine?

In 1 Cor. 5: 2, 11-13, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, "Let him who has done this be removed from among you... I write to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber-- not even to eat with such a man. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you."

Notice that he is talking about those who persist in the practice of sin and are unrepentant.

The Spirit of prophecy clearly supports this, and gives the reasons for it, as does the Bible as well. Study the SOP comments regarding the experience of Achan in Joshua 7.

Also see 1 Cor. 5: 5-7, where it says, "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump..." Verse 5 shows that one of the reasons is to try to save those who are unrepentant: "Let such a person be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in order that the spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus."

Disfellowshipping is not a statement that only some people are sinners. Nor is it a judgment that the one who is disfellowshipped is lost.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

We are not God. Thus, we can judge sinners for we are ALL sinners. What makes one person's sin less than mine?

In 1 Cor. 5: 2, 11-13, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, "Let him who has done this be removed from among you... I write to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber-- not even to eat with such a man. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you."

Notice that he is talking about those who persist in the practice of sin and are unrepentant.

The Spirit of prophecy clearly supports this, and gives the reasons for it, as does the Bible as well. Study the SOP comments regarding the experience of Achan in Joshua 7.

actually ellen white is not so cut-and-dried, thank God. reading her i see Gods mercy and long-suffering.

no offense, but i pretty much missed that in your presentation.

He had wounded and torn the hearts of God's people. I saw he had been stubborn and rebellious, and unless he changed his course entirely, the church should disfellowship him, for he has been a dead weight to the church. . . . {5MR 201.4}

Some have taken a position that those who use tobacco should be dealt with and turned out of the church. In all of our experience for many years not a case of this kind has thus been treated by us. We have borne with them and labored with and prayed with them for years, and if after a time they did not reform, they became lax in other things and causes of a grievous character occurred which required an action on the part of the church, but then the responsibility was not assumed by merely the resident elder, the deacon, or any church member, but the church waited in patience for help, for wise counselors, and then moved with the greatest caution. These hasty movements in such cases tend to ruin a church. It shows a self-sufficient, self-important, bigoted spirit, which if indulged will ruin any church. . . . {9MR 195.2}

Remember that he is God's property. Err always on the side of mercy and tenderness. We need to be wise as the serpent, and harmless as the dove. {RH, December 16, 1884 par. 10}

I saw that the messengers and the church must have compassion with some, making a difference. Now the messengers of God must seek wisdom and know how to treat each individual case. Not all must be treated alike. By close examination it will be seen that individual cases differ. Some are to be borne with longer than others, but if one is living in disobedience to the commandments of God, the church must act and must separate them from them. And for other sins it will often be necessary to disfellowship souls if they continue in their sins; yet great care should be used and great patience and forbearance exercised. {9MR 196.4}

[John317]

...The man, who was married, got involved with your sister. [That is adultery]. BEFORE he ended his first marriage, he married your sister, such that he was practicing bigamy. If that is the case, the greater sin is his, and yes, the church needed to take disfellowship action.

I agree, and in fact, so did the couple themselves. They simply didn't care if they were difellowshipped or not, because they'd allowed their sinful desires to control them. At the time, they were willing to throw everything away simply in order to satisfy their lusts. This happens a lot. Esau did it. I myself lived that way for over 30 years.

Quote:

Bigamy is a relational dysfunction, and any man who trys to please 2 women at the same time is just...well, stupid. And worse, any 2 women who are married to this type of man, and knows about the other woman, are even more stupid/dysfunctional.

Being married to two women doesn't necessarily mean a man is trying to please 2 women at the same time. Besides, some extremely intelligent, but unwise, men have more than one wife. There are many women who are living with a man who is married to another woman. We may think it's stupid, but again, it actually has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with a lack of a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ, and not understanding Bible standards. 1 John 1: 5 to 2: 6 tells us that people who know Christ don't practice those sins.

Quote:

I don't think that God wants His church to harber extreme relationships that are antagonistic to wholesome/healthy relationships.

This is very true, but what is the church to do with members who insist in pursuing those kinds of relationships?

I have a good friend who has been baptized in the church and is a member but who is sleeping with a man who is married to another woman. She knows it's wrong but she doesn't care because her husband doesn't have relations with her. So she continues to live with her husband, but she says if he doesn't "shape up," she's going to move in with her "friend" as soon as he kicks his present wife out.

I've given her a Bible and have been close friends with her since we were 13 or so, and her brother was my best friend until he died a few months ago. So I am continuing to be good friends with his sister and am praying for her, and have asked others to pray that she will be convicted of her sin and repent of it.

Quote:

And those relationships, where there is a live-in girl/boy friend, should be held up in the membership process.

I agree.

Quote:

IOWs, if a man and woman are in a single relationship, but they are committed to each other such that they are living together, AND they start coming to church, then their membership should be not be confirmed until they are married. The church should guide and encourage wholesome relationship. That I think we can agree on.

Yes.

Originally Posted By: john317

I can't see how we can think that under the circumstances the church should take no action. It was the same as thumbing their noses in public at Christ and the church.

Quote:

The Lord says "Those whom I love, I will chasten and rebuke." I am willing to let God take care of the condemning of individual and I will hold HIM accountable for bringing people into wholesome relationships.

I thought you are saying that the church was right to take the action of disfellowshipping them. It seems like you are saying here that the the church shouldn't have.

Quote:

And I have to admit, there are worse things going on in the world today in which people are "thumbing their noses in public at Christ".

Yes, sure, there are all kinds of terrible things going on, such as murder and every other crime under the sun. But we're not discussing things going on in the "world," but in the church. Paul was inspired to say that those in the church are not to judge people in the world but that believers ARE to judge those inside the church. 1 Cor. 5: 12, 13.

This doesn't mean we're to judge motives or people's salvation but rather people's behavior, conduct and words.

Quote:

It's not like it isn't happening in the world.

Agreed. They are commonplace in the world. But do we want the church to be the same as "the world"? Christ calls for a difference between the church and the world. This is the theme of the letters to the churches in the first three chapters of Revelation.

Quote:

And I have to admit, God and Christ are still on their thrones. These things are not bringing Christ down.

I agree, but it's these things-- among others-- which keep Christ from coming for His church. God was still ruling when the Israelites failed to enter the Promised Land and died instead in the wilderness. It was due to rebellion and lack of faith and obedience. Heb. 3: 16 to 4: 11. That was after God had planned to take them across the Jordan. We face the same situation today.

The sins of the church do affect Christ and the heavenly sanctuary, although you are right, that they do not bring Christ down.