Removing church members
Forum category
Its it ever right to “Kick” someone out of church and if so, for what reason/s please.. Thanks
Can you explain, “kick” someone out?
and it could be just an adherent (for churches that have formal membership), but it should be the last resort for the most extreme cases and with clear conditions for readmission.
i know of one case where a long-term adherent began distributing his book which included his heterodox views on divinity in the trinity. there were private meetings with the church leadership, but these ideas had been developing for a long time and he was unwilling to change his views. so the leadership asked him not to come anymore. i’m not really sure what would have happened if he would have tried to come. i’m glad that it didn’t escalate further. even after being asked not to come, there were church leaders who continued to talk with him.
there could be a lot of other situations, you just need a little imagination.
i know of one case where a long-term adherent began distributing his book which included his heterodox views on divinity in the trinity. there were private meetings with the church leadership, but these ideas had been developing for a long time and he was unwilling to change his views. so the leadership asked him not to come anymore. i’m not really sure what would have happened if he would have tried to come. i’m glad that it didn’t escalate further. even after being asked not to come, there were church leaders who continued to talk with him.
there could be a lot of other situations, you just need a little imagination.
I Corinthians Ch 5 deals with the removal of a sexually immoral memeber.
I Timothy Ch 1:18-20 deals with the removal of blasphemers.
I’ll not argue about the propper interpation of these verses, but you can clearly see that Paul “kicked some out” of the Church.
I Timothy Ch 1:18-20 deals with the removal of blasphemers.
I’ll not argue about the propper interpation of these verses, but you can clearly see that Paul “kicked some out” of the Church.
Thanks for the input. Daniel, In my thinking to “Kick” someone out would be to ban or bar them from any and all things about that church and fellowship.
One of my deacons came to me with this question. He was very reluctant to share any specific info until at last I backed him into a corner. As it turns out, It was about a friend of his that is being “put out” of a church (not ours) for speaking out against the direction that church is moving. Life long member age 70……
Thanks again for your input and I would still like to hear your feelings about this issue.
One of my deacons came to me with this question. He was very reluctant to share any specific info until at last I backed him into a corner. As it turns out, It was about a friend of his that is being “put out” of a church (not ours) for speaking out against the direction that church is moving. Life long member age 70……
Thanks again for your input and I would still like to hear your feelings about this issue.
That is what I thought you meant, but wanted to make sure before I gave any input because there is a big difference between practicing church discipline, and actually not allowing a person to come to that church. One is definitely Biblical, while the other is probably neither Biblical nor unbiblical but more prudent if the circumstances are appropriate. A few months ago our young adults service was going over I Cor 5, and now we are going over Ch 7. There and repeatedly elsewhere, it seems the heart of all should be to seek reconciliation. I cannot think of a passage where we should ever stop seeking it, even handing them over to the destruction of their flesh can be seen as the last form of reconciliation. So, if you do ban someone you are essentially cutting them off from reconciliation. (obviously, they could choose to seek you and be reconciled, but I think that is a separate issue)
Re the Deacon’s friend: I remember in church history two words oft repeated: amicably separated. And most of the splits in question were over, without knowing exactly what the direction is, far greater doctrines. Leaving on good terms and finding another church that he agrees with may be the more wise thing to do, rather than burning bridges.
Just my thoughts
Re the Deacon’s friend: I remember in church history two words oft repeated: amicably separated. And most of the splits in question were over, without knowing exactly what the direction is, far greater doctrines. Leaving on good terms and finding another church that he agrees with may be the more wise thing to do, rather than burning bridges.
Just my thoughts
Again I want to thank everyone for their input.
Daniel, I have seen this idea of finding another church mentioned before, Back when my church was talking about incorperation. And maybe sometimes leaving is the right thing. But what if you don’t feel lead to leave ?
I felt lead to join but I have no peace at all about leaving. And thats just me. When you look at a lifetime spent in the same church ? And what if this man is in the right ? What if a bunch of liberal minded people were brought in, Joined and took the church in a different direction ?
Should he leave if he is the only one trying to keep his church from allowing gay couples to join ?
I have no idea what really is the problem with this man and his church but I have a feeling that it is something along these lines.
Daniel, I have seen this idea of finding another church mentioned before, Back when my church was talking about incorperation. And maybe sometimes leaving is the right thing. But what if you don’t feel lead to leave ?
I felt lead to join but I have no peace at all about leaving. And thats just me. When you look at a lifetime spent in the same church ? And what if this man is in the right ? What if a bunch of liberal minded people were brought in, Joined and took the church in a different direction ?
Should he leave if he is the only one trying to keep his church from allowing gay couples to join ?
I have no idea what really is the problem with this man and his church but I have a feeling that it is something along these lines.
Should he leave if he is the only one trying to keep his church from allowing gay couples to join ?Ok - so assuming that the church is moving in a sinful direction.
I have no idea what really is the problem with this man and his church but I have a feeling that it is something along these lines.
I think he has to honestly ask himself if there is chance of success.
If he thinks that he can influence the church for good, then stay and fight for it.
If he thinks that the church will not change (perhaps EVERYBODY else is moving in the other direction), then best (even commanded) to leave that group of people.
BUT the question here is if the guy thinks that maybe he can influence the church, wants to try, but the other leadership has asked him to leave.
I don’t think he should honor their “putting him out.” He should stay and fight.
But he also should know when to throw in the towel and separate (assuming it’s a sinful direction).
Thanks Dan. LOL The more I think about this the more twists and turns I see in it. I guess I know I am the lone ranger here but I can’t think of a single reason ( Scripture ) telling a man to turn and walk away and leave a church to fall. That is, going on the thought that something is/was going on that is clearly against the Word.
But maybe I’m wrong. If you see that I am please point me in the right direction.
Thanks again.
But maybe I’m wrong. If you see that I am please point me in the right direction.
Thanks again.
I know part of answering this question is more just opinions rather than thus saith the Lord. A question I was pondering was, if you moved to a new area, would you attend the church? What is it that makes you want to stay in a church that you would not choose to attend if you were not a member to begin with? Obviously it is not completely black and white, but perhaps it is a question that this guy needs to ask.
Daniel, I think this is all about HOW your looking at it. ( or how I am ) What if Adam had come home and when Eve offered him the fruit he had said oh no ?
Jam 5:19 ¶ Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jam 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
This from James seems to me very good reason to stay and tell the people that they are doing wrong.. But an even stronger point IMO is one for NOT leaving.
Eze 33:2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
Eze 33:3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
Eze 33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
Eze 33:5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.
But how many times are we to blow the trumpet ? This is where I feel a person should “Wait upon the Lord”.
Num 22:23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.
That added just so anyone could see, you don’t have to be Adrian Rogers or Billy Graham to show someone they do wrong.
And so I ask you. Are you sure walking away is the RIGHT thing to do ?
Jam 5:19 ¶ Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jam 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
This from James seems to me very good reason to stay and tell the people that they are doing wrong.. But an even stronger point IMO is one for NOT leaving.
Eze 33:2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
Eze 33:3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
Eze 33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
Eze 33:5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.
But how many times are we to blow the trumpet ? This is where I feel a person should “Wait upon the Lord”.
Num 22:23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.
That added just so anyone could see, you don’t have to be Adrian Rogers or Billy Graham to show someone they do wrong.
And so I ask you. Are you sure walking away is the RIGHT thing to do ?
Church leaders can and do use “sowing discord among brethren” (Prov.6:19) and “. .. Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” (Ps. 105:15) to close down dissent. I get a bit nervous when there are suddenly comments from the pulpit about not gossiping and a big push for unity. Even those who feel led to stay and warn can feel pushed out. I realize that’s not the original question, but what about making sure you leave before disciplinary proceedings start? I am not referring to what most of us would agree are fairly obvious and public sins, e.g., sexual immorality or habitual drunkenness when attempts have been made to confront and correct.
Sure, HOW you look at it does determine what actions you would take. For example, when I read James, I don’t think one must stay in the church in order to try and change their ways. James doesn’t mention that. What he mentions is that one should try their best to change a person’s ways. How that happens is, IMO, purely circumstantial. Does that mean, I must stay at the church? Or do I just meet with them for coffee once every other week?
But there are way too many variables for me to make a blanket statement about this. For example, how much ability does he have to speak up and say what he is thinking. In a large church like I go to, I have hardly any ability. So if it was going a direction I did not like, I would probably email the pastoral staff. Ask them out for coffee. If I realize they are not going to change, I doubt I would stay and fight. I would probably leave but continue the dialog.
But there are way too many variables for me to make a blanket statement about this. For example, how much ability does he have to speak up and say what he is thinking. In a large church like I go to, I have hardly any ability. So if it was going a direction I did not like, I would probably email the pastoral staff. Ask them out for coffee. If I realize they are not going to change, I doubt I would stay and fight. I would probably leave but continue the dialog.
[Marty H] Thanks Dan. LOL The more I think about this the more twists and turns I see in it. I guess I know I am the lone ranger here but I can’t think of a single reason ( Scripture ) telling a man to turn and walk away and leave a church to fall. That is, going on the thought that something is/was going on that is clearly against the Word.Well, again, assuming that they are moving in a sinful direction:
But maybe I’m wrong. If you see that I am please point me in the right direction.
Thanks again.
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” - 1 Corinthians 5:9-11
If the “church” as a whole has chosen to move in a sinful direction, then you shouldn’t associate with them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
But please don’t apply this to disputable matters. Definitely not the same.
Much food for thought. Thanks all.
the structure given in Matthew 18: 15-17:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.Tomorrow I will look up the relevant passages in Hiscox’s
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Discussion