"Our action in removing members was motivated fundamentally by a desire to become a more biblically-functioning church"

A better term for this church’s action is exclusion. Discipline refers to the process taught in Mat. 18:15-17, and requires confrontation over specific sins.

An imprecise headline, I think. The article itself uses excommunication, exclude, and remove.

Actually, the article seems to indicate the vote was the final step in what appears to be a Matt. 18 process. Teaching was presented. Direction was indicated. Individuals were confronted. Then the vote to remove those who refused counsel was taken. Seems legitimate to me. In what way do you see a violation of Matt 18, Ted?

Amen! May it happen more often! Hopefully pastors will look into these swelling church roles and ask themselves what is causing this and then determine to do something about it. I know there will be “tares among the wheat” and we will never fully prevent this from happening but a lot of these #’s come from pastors eager to pad their stats.

I agree they needed to trim the roles. It’s the pious posturing that sickens me. I disagree that it needed be handled in “church discipline” fashion. I would like to concur that discipline was not what was going on, but the pastor certainly acted as if it were, and he did not correct the interviewer when the interviewer used the word “excommunicated.”

This is a clear case of projection. The church leadership over the past several years has conducted itself poorly enough that it has 500+ people that it doesn’t even know where they are or what they’re doing. So, to remedy the situation, they’re going to put the blame on the people and tell them they need to fix the problem… or else. Then, they pat themselves on the back and congratulate each other on their commitment to meaningful membership.

The whole process is way out of line. “Reaffirm your membership.” What does that mean? Baptism is my membership. This “contact us or you’re out” policy is absurd. That’s a far cry from a Matt. 18 process. The people at the member meeting can take comfort knowing that they’re the ones who are really committed to following Jesus. I hope that makes them happy.

I disagree that it needed be handled in “church discipline” fashion.

Church discipline is what happens when someone lives in unrepentant sin. Since the Bible commands meeting together, to fail to do so is unrepentant sin. Therefore, removing them from the membership is church discipline over the unrepentant sin of failing to assemble with the body, is it not?

The church leadership over the past several years has conducted itself poorly enough that it has 500+ people that it doesn’t even know where they are or what they’re doing.

Curious as to why it is the church leaderships responsibility here. Isn’t it the members responsibility to show and keep the promises they made?

So, to remedy the situation, they’re going to put the blame on the people and tell them they need to fix the problem… or else.

I missed that part of the article, I think. They said that “Sermons were preached, letters were mailed, articles were written, contact lists were published, phone calls and visits were made, time was given.” That doesn’t sound like putting the blame on the people.

However, more to the point, when someone habitual doesn’t show up to church and keep the promise they made, who should we blame? And who can fix that problem? I think the only person to blame is the person who doesn’t show up and the only way to fix the problem is to show up and keep your promises.

“Reaffirm your membership.” What does that mean?

Based on their wording about “our church’s mission, doctrine, and covenant” doesn’t it mean to reaffirm that you agree with our church’s mission, doctrine, and covenant and that you intend to live by them?

This “contact us or you’re out” policy is absurd.

I don’t think that was the policy, was it? At least I didn’t see that there. They talked about how they contacted people in multiple ways and left plenty of time.

That’s a far cry from a Matt. 18 process.

How is going multiple times to people who are living in habitual sin a “far cry from the Matt. 18 process”? What do you think the Matt 18 process is?

The people at the member meeting can take comfort knowing that they’re the ones who are really committed to following Jesus. I hope that makes them happy.

I suppose this raises the question of can you be “really committed to following Jesus” if you don’t show up at the church and keep the promises you made to them?

What happened is that a church remedied a record-keeping problem (in a muddled manner) and acted like it made some great stride for Jesus.

According to the article, “Half of them had moved away, and the other half still lived in the area but never worshiped with us.” So, I imagine that of the people still remaining, they were of several types. One type may have found another church. Another type may not go to church anymore and may not care what the leaders do. (In this case, the church excommunicating them is like a boss shouting, “Oh yeah, well you’re fired” after an employee quits.) I imagine that those who refused to go to church ever but really wanted to retain membership were a distinct minority. The actions of the church, however, really apply meaningfully only to this group.

So, what actually happened at that member meeting? If we say the church disciplined all those people, then I’m struck by the oddness of disciplining people for moving out of town. If we say the church merely removed them, dropped them from the roll in a way that implies nothing about their spiritual status, then no discipline in fact took place and the accompanying hype and “biblically faithful” rhetoric makes no sense. If they did not differentiate between what actions they were taking regarding distinct individuals, then we have a mess. Who is excommunicated and needs to be regarded as “a Gentile and a tax collector” and who just left town or moved to another church? The last scenario seems to be what happened, and it’s a mess.

At best, what we have is a church cleaning up their records to reflect reality, which is a good idea, but hardly merits the posturing they took and praise they’re receiving. But I detect a darker undertone to the rhetoric. Rather than simply admit that they have a records problem and need to clean up their rolls, they decided to super-spiritualize the process. The slogan seems to me to be “Are you in or out?” The message is that those who re-affirm the membership are the biblically faithful people, and these names that are being read out are those who are not. They’re not willing to do what it takes to make the grade. I wonder how much farther they will go in excluding those who aren’t committed enough to the church.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Actually, the article seems to indicate the vote was the final step in what appears to be a Matt. 18 process. Teaching was presented. Direction was indicated. Individuals were confronted. Then the vote to remove those who refused counsel was taken. Seems legitimate to me. In what way do you see a violation of Matt 18, Ted?

Hi Chip,

Have I missed the word “vote” in the Matthew 18:15-17? ;)

The Lord doesn’t call for a vote anymore than He calls for a potluck dinner. What He does command is that the church respond to the “established evidence” of the two or three witnesses to the offender’s sin and impenitence (Mat. 18:16), The church is not called to vote, but to go and confront the impenitent. As Jesus says, “if he refuses to listen to even to the church…”

Discipline is the process of making a person aware of their sin and calling for repentance from it, specifically. This church didn’t do that.

Mark Dever did a similar thing when he came to Capitol Hill. He tells the story at the Weekender about a members’ meeting in which they removed hundreds of people from the membership rolls, and they voted on each of them individually. This, of course, was after multiple attempts to contact each of them.

BTW, as a commenter pointed out, the pastor being interviewed never used the word “excommunicated.” Here’s the initial exchange:

JL: David, I heard that you recently excommunicated 500 members from your church. Can this be right?

DK: What you heard is only partly true. We actually removed 575 members. (emphasis added)

The Lord doesn’t call for a vote anymore than He calls for a potluck dinner. What He does command is that the church respond to the “established evidence” of the two or three witnesses to the offender’s sin and impenitence (Mat. 18:16), The church is not called to vote, but to go and confront the impenitent. As Jesus says, “if he refuses to listen to even to the church…”

How does the church speak corporately? Through a vote. The fact that the word “vote” is not used is a straw man. It misses the point of a how a church speaks as a church. It’s the same way any body speaks as a body.

Discipline is the process of making a person aware of their sin and calling for repentance from it, specifically. This church didn’t do that.

The article says that the preached on it, sent letters, visited, made phone calls, etc. Wouldn’t you think all of that was to make people aware of their sin and calling them to repentance?

[Larry] How does the church speak corporately? Through a vote. The fact that the word “vote” is not used is a straw man. It misses the point of a how a church speaks as a church. It’s the same way any body speaks as a body.

Hi Larry,

Kindly go back and read the passage. Please focus on the Lord’s terms, “refuses to listen.” Notice they are used of both the witnesses, and the church, in Mat. 18:17. Therefore, our Lord is commanding the church to do precisely the same personal confrontation as the witnesses.

No church in the NT, Larry, ever spake corporately through a church vote. So for me to correct that assumption, based on Scripture, is not building a straw man. Isn’t it those who claim that “churches patterned after the NT speak through votes” who erect a man of straw?

The article says that the preached on it, sent letters, visited, made phone calls, etc. Wouldn’t you think all of that was to make people aware of their sin and calling them to repentance?

No, becasue they didn’t identify the sin(s) of these people as such in those communications. They were merely calling them to come back to attend religious services. The process in Matthew 18 is explicit about this, since the purpose of discipline is repentance from sin, not attendance upon religious services.

Thanks for the questions.

Please focus on the Lord’s terms, “refuses to listen.” Notice they are used of both the witnesses, and the church, in v. 17. Therefore, our Lord is commanding the church to do precisely the same personal confrontation as the witnesses.

So how does that happen? How does the church personally confront an individual differently than a witness would? How would that take place.

No church in the NT, Larry, ever spake corporately through a church vote.

I think that is incorrect. Consider the idea of “selecting from among yourselves” in Acts 6. The most reasonable way (the only way?) to take that is that there was some sort of congregational voice. In 1 Cor 5, the church is to put out from among them. AGain, the most reasonable way (the only way?) to take that is there was some sort of congregational voice. If that’s not a vote, then how does the congregation make that voice known?

If there is no vote how would the church do anything as a church? How would they call a pastor, or a deacon?

Furthermore, you note that in Matt 18 there is a difference between the 2 or 3 witnesses and the church. Is your position that the whole church body must physically go en masse to the person? Do you envision that as X hundred people standing at the front door or crowding into a living room for this congregation? Or a conference call during a church meeting? How exactly does the confrontation of the witnesses differ from the confrontation of the church?

No, becasue they didn’t identify the sin(s) of these people as such in those communications.

REally? How do you know this? Did you see them? Because I didn’t see them. If you have a copy, I would love to see it to confirm that you are correct. If they did not identify abandoning the body as “sin,” then you are correct.

The process in Matthew 18 is explicit about this, since the purpose of discipline is repentance from sin, not attendance upon religious services.

So would you say that abandoning the body is not a sin?

Great questions. I don’t have time to answer them in the detail they deserve. Please forgive me. Perhaps when my book, The Titus Mandate, comes out next year you’ll pick it up.

How does a church confront an impenitent member? Personally. Those in the church who know the person go to him/her and ask him/her to repent. What’s to vote on? The matter is already established as fact (Mat. 18:16). The Lord doesn’t bear witness to the “voice of the congregation” but to the witnesses (Mat. 18:20).

I understand your view of Acts 6 and 1 Cor. 5 - I used to think of them the same way. Acts 6 is selection based on pre-set criteria (number, gender, qualifications). It wasn’t up for vote, but recognition. Notice all the names are Hellenistic, not Hebraic. In 1 Cor. 5, what’s to vote on? Paul is commanding them to put the man out, not asking them to vote on it. The voting position means that Paul shouldn’t have commanded the church to put the man out, since they are the “final authority.” What if they had voted, but had voted to retain the man? They were already leaning this way.

Lastly, I am basing my assertion that the non-attenders of this church were not confronted for sin based on the interview I read. Nor were they charged with “abandoning the body” - perhaps we should put a biblical term on that - like, “hatred?” :cry:

How does a church confront an impenitent member? Personally. Those in the church who know the person go to him/her and ask him/her to repent.

It is hard to see how “church” equals “those in the church who know the person.” You are equating “church” with “part of the church.” I don’t think that is warranted. It seems to me that the church as a whole are the ones who are supposed to speak to them, not the part of the church that knows them.

What’s to vote on?

On putting them out—treating them as a sinner. The church makes the statement as a body. It is not “Those who know them” (something relatively easy to say if it had been intended) who makes the statement that they are to listen to, but the church itself.

The matter is already established as fact (Mat. 18:16). The Lord doesn’t bear witness to the “voice of the congregation” but to the witnesses (Mat. 18:20).

And the church, based on that fact, is to speak to the person. The two or three witnesses is to confirm it to the church not the Lord. He already knows the facts.

Acts 6 is selection based on pre-set criteria (number, gender, qualifications). It wasn’t up for vote, but recognition.

Then why doesn’t it say “recognize”? It says “Select.” I assume that there were more than seven qualified men (else, why specify seven?), and that seven must be selected from among the qualified. How did that selection take place? Or how would a congregational “recognition” take place if not by some corporate statement?

In 1 Cor. 5, what’s to vote on?

On putting the person out. When Paul says “You should have done this,” he is referring to what the body should have done, not what an individual should have done.

Paul is commanding them to put the man out, not asking them to vote on it. The voting position means that Paul shouldn’t have commanded the church to put the man out, since they are the “final authority.” What if they had voted, but had voted to retain the man? They were already leaning this way.

Then they would be disobedient. Paul was exercising apostolic authority. But the church was to put them out. How does the church do that? What mechanism does the church have to put someone out of the church?

I think that is the question you are not answering here in any of this. You are kind of beating around the bush. How does the church body do anything? You have said they should “recognize” deacons. But how does the body do that? It certainly isn’t “pick them out of a lineup” is it? You say that Paul commanded them (meaning the church) to put them out. But how does the church do that? What means would they use?

Lastly, I am basing my assertion that the non-attenders of this church were not confronted for sin based on the interview I read. Nor were they charged with “abandoning the body” - perhaps we should put a biblical term on that - like, “hatred?”

I don’t think “hatred” is a biblical term that is ever used as you use it, but perhaps I am forgetting something. Hebrews 11:24-25 was cited, so I think to say that they were not confronted with sin is reading far more into than is warranted. You may be right, but you certainly have no basis for saying that based on this interview. You are assuming the worst, aren’t you?