I am not an anabaptist. I do not consider that the Church should withdraw from society. I think we are to be in society as a witness, an example, and a preservative.
But part of preserving the truth is the use of some fairly emotional methods of discipline. One is shunning or non association. You simply have nothing to do with the person who has broken the rules. He or she is shut out of the Church, and the daily life of those who are of the church.
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
15:9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons — 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”
via Daily Lectionary Readings — Devotions and Readings — Mission and Ministry — GAMC.
Now this is seen in our society as harsh, puritanical. Ironically, it is how we act with idolators, revilers, drunkards and thieves. It is the way the ecologically over sensitive would have us act for those who do not recycle.
But to add the sexually immoral is seen as not allowing the church to be inclusive. Rubbish. Sin is sin. We are all guilty.. yes, of lust, of covetousness, but we do not need to be ruled by them. We have to look beyond the cultural memes such as “the Scarlet letter” and keep the church.
And since the church does not have the power of the state to fine, imprison and execute (note that in the inquisition and counter-inquisition people were handed to the crown or council for punishment after being excommunicated) the most powerful and painful punishment we have is to non associate.
Agreed. Now, do we do this as individuals, or do we bring matters before consistory / session, and let them decide, then follow their lead, i.e. if they end up excommunicating an unrepentant brother or sister, do we shun them then, and only then, not beforehand?
I incline to the view that the church should let its governing bodies deliberate, before church members initiate acts of shunning. Rather, in the meantime, if we know of someone who is straying, we should confront them but encourage them to walk in the right way, to stop what they’re doing, repent, and change their ways. But if they won’t, best to go the elders with the matter.
Shunning is painful. The offenses Paul mentions should be matters for the consistory (or session) of elders.
It seemed to me that I was shunned for asking questions about mandatory tithing. It was an offense to me that this happened.
You offended the culture.. Tithing is not mandatory — that is Paul’s teaching. It is a good guideline. And people shun if you offend . Confronting unbiblical teaching tends to be offensive .