Church Discipline

Here is a copy of the letter sent to her:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Church_Extortion.pdf

The church has followed the Bible, she has not.:sleeping_2:

 

It is the church's responsibility to remove her from the role if she refuses to repent, not hers.

 

Well, what does the Bible say?


1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
1Co 5:10 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.
1Co 5:11 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.


I believe we should obey the Bible. As long as this woman persists in her unrepentant adultery AND calling herself a Christian, we are commanded not to associate with her in any way: even eating a meal with her.

If she :

#1 Admits she is not actually a Christian, or
#2 Repents, and turns from her Adultery

...then we can "associate" with her once again.

Some scriptural truth makes us uncomfortable, but that does not change it.

 

Are you saying that a church member does not have the right to remove themselves from the role??

That means that every church I have ever been a member of (3), still has authority over me even though I have had my membership moved to my present church?

The rules of discipline only apply to members of a local church. Once they're not members of that church anymore, they have no authority over members who have left.

 

Yes, the role falls under church authority. By her asking to join this church she ultimately subjected herself to its authority and never places her as authority over it.

Yes, to remove you from their role. You caused your removal by leaving for the specified amount of time for automatic removal. It stil is the action of the church to remove you as a member, not yours.

Good way for all rebels to never be under anyone's authoirty but their own! I wonder how Isaiah 14's example of the king of Tyre might come into play where this principle is concerned?

One leaves a church to go to another church to be under that authority, not to escape authority. One who does leave to be out from under authority is in danger of becoming a law unto themselves.

Authority is not so to place rules and regulations to control those under it, it is an umbrella of protection for all who choose to stay under it's protection.

The police are to serve and protect, not enforce laws, that is up to the courts to do.

Churches are to carry out disciplinary measures to keep the assembly free of blatant sin and maintain a good testimony. This woman's actions clearly indicate her attempts to have some sort of authority over that church due to her sin.

Sin has no authority over the church, else it is run by satan. Her actions are satanic!

The church's authority is under attack, only satan would attack the church, but guess what? "Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!"

What comes through the gates of hell cannot prevail over God's church, although it's member can bring reproach on its testimony by choosing to regard sin over righteousness.

This woman is placing herself at a great disadvantage. Due to her regard for her sin over what is right she cannot even get a prayer through to God/ she is unprotected!

This church is taking the steps laid out by the Lord himself as the means to restore her. They do not wish to harm her, only they know she is open game for the deceiver to destroy her.

If they remove her from their role, it is not final that she could not learn from her mistakes and be restored back into fellowship.

What this thread ought to do is open the eyes of many and stop the mouths of gainsayers.

She is placing herself in a very dangerous position.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, the elders of the church and the members involved really do love the woman with Christian love and really do want her to repent and have her relationship with Christ and His church restored.

Wouldn't it be unChristlike and unbiblical to allow her to remove herself from the guidence of other Christians during a time of temptation and testing? What kind of love does that display? During your most intense time of temptation, we just wash our hands of it?

They must continue the process because our Lord has commanded them to do so.

peace to youraying:

 

I disagree. I go to church to worship corporately with other like minded believers, not to be "under their authority". Although once a member of a particular church does mean that I am expected to be under the authority of Christ.

I see nothing in the NT scriptures speaking of church "membership" or "church" roles in the sense that we speak of it today. Our membership rules are a modern invention. What I see in the writings of Paul is that all were "members" of Christ's church, but gathered in local assemblies to worship, which we call the local church. Once a part of the local assembly they were subject to the rules of church discipline as outlined by the Lord Himself. There is no evidence that a person required permission to leave the local assembly or even the body of Christ. If they chose to leave the church and go back into the world, they were not true believers, as John has said:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.



I am NOT defending the woman in this story.

 

I never said they should wash their hands of her! I'm saying that once she left the church, they have no authority to discipline her. But they should keep in contact with her and as the Bible says, treat her as an unbeliever, which means they should witness to her in hopes of her being saved or being restored to the Lord.


I also never said that the church should remove her from the role. The "role" is just a modern invention anyway and has nothing to do with church discipline.

 

Yes and no, one removes them self by ceasing fellowship.

 

Did you read the article? Do you understand the principles of church discipline? The article said the elders threatened public humiliation. That is not the same as bringing it before the congregation.

OK, now its time to hear about one of your shaded Greek meanings.

While you got your handy dandy Greek book there, look up repentence and restoration, and just for fun, look up forgiveness.

 

My guess is that in the halls and corners of that church between Sunday School and church, member's mouths are in high gear in the gossip mode.

 

Bout' six times...Did you read the letter?

Very well. And you don't stop church discipline just because the person receiving it doesn't like it. There is a three step process: you don't stop the process until all of the steps are completed, and the ASSEMBLY (not the person undergoing discipline) excommunicates you {delivers you to Satan}.

That is what the ARTICLE said: that is not what the ELDERS LETTER said. The article is calling the biblical concept of "telling the church", "public humiliation".

In Palestine, they call the terrorists "freedom fighters": get it?

This is all the letter said they were going to do. Period. The woman has publicly humiliated herself, by going to the media.

You really need to read the letter, instead of just reading the media's "buzz words".

The Church is doing exactly what Christ commanded: telling it to the church. The media's word for that is "public humiliation".

 

For what it's worth, I say the woman is no longer a member of the church, so the church has no authority over her. The point could be argued endlessly.

I can't help but wonder how many of those who are casting stones are without sin? Does this church take as hard a line on those who are doing the gossipping? Surely, tongues are wagging.

What sins are not worthy of discipline? Not tithing, thus robbing God? Deliberately not being a faithful attender, thus violating the command to not forsaking the assembling together? Never sharing one's faith, thus violating the command to be witnesses?

Where do you start, and where do you stop?

 

It is not a question of sinning. It is a question of unrepentance. The person is confronted with their wrongdoing, that it goes against Christ, and they basically say "I don't care".

It starts and stops at public sins: sins that bring disgrace to the Church, and to Christ, and that we can actually know about. We are commanded to do it, by Jesus Himself: if you are not, you are being disobedient, period.

 

Christ said this or did Paul say this?

I believe this is the verse you are referring to;

1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So the motive here is to not have a Church that from the outside appears sin is accepted. How would the world get this view if she is no longer fellowshipping with the Church?

 

See, this is where you are wrong. It is a three step process, yes, but stops at whatever step the person repents. Each additional step is conditional.

If this was a situation in your church, and had not become a media circus, tell me, how would you know the situation was true if you had only heard rumors? Has the church disciplined those who stood out in the halls and gossiped about it endlessly? Is this a double standard? The gossip question and this one were posed to you earler. Maybe you have your own personal ranking of worst sin to best.

 

I thought gossip was accepted as long as it's prefaced with "I don't want to spread any rumors but".

 

I thought gossip was accepted so long as it was followed up with a "bless her heart."

 

What is amazing to me is that you are attributing the worst possible motives to the Christians that are following the Word of God.

You do not know that anyone is "gossiping" in that church. Your are just assuming everyone in the church are hypocrites just wanting to humiliate the woman.

Why do you assume that? Why not assume that they are secerely concerned for this woman's spiritual walk before God and are doing everything God has instructed them to do to help her?

peace to youraying: