Shunning

[River Jordan]

Sorry, but I'm unconvinced. If someone in a group isn't acting according to the standards of that group, then the adult, intelligent thing to do is discuss the issue with them, even if the endpoint is "It's time for you to leave". At least that way everyone is on the same page. OTOH, "we're going to start ignoring you" creates a vacuum of information that typically gets filled in with negative assumptions.

But again, some people have their sense of justice stunted at the punishment/reward stage, so I'm sure to folks like that "let's sit down and talk this through" isn't the preferred course.

Oh, and nowhere in I Corinthians 5 does Paul say anything about shunning someone. He instead advises the group to throw out a man who was sleeping with his stepmother. But you can kick someone out of your group without shunning them (see above).

 

[Wormwood]

There are four phrases in the English language that fill me with dread when uttered for they herald great evil to come.

At any cost
The end justifies the means
For the greater good
This is God's will

I shudder when men utter these or similar phrases.

You shudder when you hear that people will follow Jesus at any cost? I don't think anyone is saying "the end justifies the means." That implies the "means" are evil and I don't think discipline or the direct instruction of Jesus and the NT is evil. If we cant read the direct instruction of Jesus and determine, "This is God's will" than we lose the meaning of what it is to be Christian since Christians accept the instruction and life of Christ to be the clearest expression of God's will possible.

My view on this assumes that the person being "shunned" has been confronted and is unrepentant (see post #12). Moreover, it is clear that the excusing someone from fellowship was a complete "shunning" of the individual. Consider the words of Jesus:

““If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15–17, ESV)

Clearly, Jesus is instructing his disciples to lovingly confront an errant person but if that person is resistant to the leadership and the fellowship of believers as a whole, they were to be completely avoided. Paul shows that casting a person out in this manner is a means to bring conviction and repentance. When/If they repent, they are to be welcomed back with open arms. The fact that churches are unwilling to take a hard stand against those who flaunt their sins in their fellowship is perhaps one of the reasons why the church is so ineffective in its witness today. If only the Church feared God more than the opinions of other people, perhaps the witness of the Church would be more effective today.

 

[justaname]

Shunning in today's society is different than 2000 years ago in small village living...

 

[pom2014]

Yes I would shudder to follow anyone at any cost.

I would not kill for Jesus, not steal for Jesus, nor lie for Jesus, nor commit any atrocity for him.

In fact, if God said to do evil in his name I'd know its not him but the enemy.

And any man that claims God directed him to evil is my enemy as well. I will not follow any order to commit evil from anyone.

I see shunning, like capital punishment and physical punishment as nothing less than evil and a direct violation of the two great commands.

It is not loving and is dysfunctional behavior.

Lack of communication causes resentment that hardens the heart and violence is never a problem solving tool.

 

[JimParker]

Also see:

Tit 3:10-11 "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned." (RSV)

and

1Co 5:11: "... I wrote 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 one."

 

[KingJ]

Sorry, but I'm unconvinced. If someone in a group isn't acting according to the standards of that group, then the adult, intelligent thing to do is discuss the issue with them, even if the endpoint is "It's time for you to leave". At least that way everyone is on the same page. OTOH, "we're going to start ignoring you" creates a vacuum of information that typically gets filled in with negative assumptions.

But again, some people have their sense of justice stunted at the punishment/reward stage, so I'm sure to folks like that "let's sit down and talk this through" isn't the preferred course.

Oh, and nowhere in I Corinthians 5 does Paul say anything about shunning someone. He instead advises the group to throw out a man who was sleeping with his stepmother. But you can kick someone out of your group without shunning them (see above).

I agree. I was thinking of shunning as removing for some reason. Shunning is ignoring as you said and that has no scriptural support.

 

[Wormwood]

I see shunning, like capital punishment and physical punishment as nothing less than evil and a direct violation of the two great commands.

I am at a loss for words. I don't know how the biblical command to avoid or cast a person out who is divisive and wicked from the local fellowship so they might be convicted of their sin as comparable to killing them or physically beating them. Are you telling me that if you attended a church and a person started heckling the preacher at the top of his lungs and stripped his clothes off and made a spectacle of himself that you wouldn't want the person escorted out? Or, if a person started attending a class at your local fellowship and started teaching false doctrines in order to lead people astray, you wouldn't want them sent out? This seems a little ridiculous to me. Clearly there are valid reasons to send a person out of the fellowship, and unrepentant sin and divisive behaviors are some of the reasons the Bible clearly addresses. There are other people to consider than the one being shunned. If we don't shun and a person is bringing in false teaching and leading people astray, don't you hate the rest of the fellowship in order to show "love" to the person who is acting wickedly? The Church is not a safehaven for evil behavior. I don't think the commands in the Bible could be more clear on the issue:

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17, ESV)

“And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:2, ESV)

“As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,” (Titus 3:10, ESV)

“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 5:11, ESV)

“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, ESV)

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,” (2 John 10, ESV)

“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” (Romans 16:17, ESV)

 

[pom2014]

Also see:

Tit 3:10-11 "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned." (RSV)

and

1Co 5:11: "... I wrote 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 one."

Well that's Paul for you.

Whereas Jesus ate with the sinners.

I'll stick to the King.

 

[JimParker]

Well that's Paul for you.

Whereas Jesus ate with the sinners.

I'll stick to the King.

That view misses the point.

Jesus ate with sinners to encourage them to repent. But he thoroughly lambasted the hypocrites.

Paul is referring to people who call themselves Christians but who are hypocrites and troublemakers.

Paul does not disagree with Jesus.

 

[pom2014]

Well I see things as if you're a hypocrite, you're not who you claim to be.

And that means you need help more than being turned away. Think the good samaritan. The pious shunned the man in danger. The samaritan went above and beyond to help.

I'd rather serve a kinsman in need than let him perish on his own. You place faith in shunning, I'll place mine in reaching out.

 

[Alsett]

That view misses the point.

Jesus ate with sinners to encourage them to repent. But he thoroughly lambasted the hypocrites.

Paul is referring to people who call themselves Christians but who are hypocrites and troublemakers.

Paul does not disagree with Jesus.

But everyone is a hypocrite, we are all sinners. Even if we are washed with the blood of Christ that doesn't mean that sin stops being an issue in our day to day lives. Has anyone here refrained from sinning today, this week, this year? I'm not saying we shouldn't correct each other, but the three strikes policy doesn't allow for the types of slow transitions many people need. If Paul's approach had been taken in my life, I think my story would be a lot different, and certainly not better. In my day to day life now I am not surrounded by a Chrstian community, and it makes it so much easier to fall into sinful ways of thinking, talking, and acting.

 

[Wormwood]

pom,

As Christians, we accept the Bible as inspired by God. Are you suggesting that Paul was not inspired and that not all of the NT is the word of God? Im just trying to be clear about where you stand on revelation.

 

[Axehead]

1Cor_5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Cor_5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Cor_5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (does anyone follow this scripture?)

Let's stick to the Scriptures, if that's ok. NOT KEEPING COMPANY with someone engaged in the above activities is good for the church and a witness to your children and weak believers (a little leaven leavens the whole lump) and is a testimony to the world that the Church is not going to preach holiness yet engage in the activities of 1 Cor 5:10-11.

Paul is spot on with Jesus. He will not keep company with hypocrites. Jesus did not seek out the Pharisees and become buddy buddy with them or call them friends. On the contrary, He reserved His harshest, most damning words for the hypocrites. "Ye are of your father the Devil".

Even Jude says nothing about keeping company. Keeping company back then with someone is being a close and intimate friend with them, allowing them into the inner circle of your friends and family.
Jude_1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

As I said before, people that are loving their sin and unrepentant will not want anything to do with you, anyway. That is of course, if you are following the Lord with all your heart.

Jude_1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude_1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

 

[FHII]

pom,

As Christians, we accept the Bible as inspired by God. Are you suggesting that Paul was not inspired and that not all of the NT is the word of God? Im just trying to be clear about where you stand on revelation.

I stand with you on that question, wormwood. Paul even said he was Christ's ambassador and spike in his stead. So unless its one of those circumstances where Paul spoke by permission, Paul's words carry the same weight as jesus' just as when the prophets sais, " thus saith the Lord".

 

[River Jordan]

I agree. I was thinking of shunning as removing for some reason. Shunning is ignoring as you said and that has no scriptural support.

In my background, "shunning" is a very specific and deliberate act by a community of believers, where they essentially pretend a person no longer exists. No one in the community is allowed to have any communication or interaction at all with the person being shunned. Sometimes this goes on for a set period of time, other times it's permanent. But either way, it's vindictive, childish and downright mean.

That's not at all the same thing as kicking someone out of your group.

 

[FHII]

In my background, "shunning" is a very specific and deliberate act by a community of believers, where they essentially pretend a person no longer exists. No one in the community is allowed to have any communication or interaction at all with the person being shunned. Sometimes this goes on for a set period of time, other times it's permanent. But either way, it's vindictive, childish and downright mean.

That's not at all the same thing as kicking someone out of your group.

River, I would like your comments on 2 thes 3:11-15. I've brought this set of verses up, but have missed any response regarding it.

It seems to me that if this is "shunning", there is a place for it, as well as a procedure. In any sense, I don't see it as an occasion to beat up on a brother. It's more of a last resort to correct him.

I'm looking forward to your comments.

 

[River Jordan]

River, I would like your comments on 2 thes 3:11-15.

The first part is specifically about members of the church who won't work, but still want to enjoy the benefits, i.e., eating. So Paul is saying if they won't work, go ahead and feed them, but have them eat by themselves. Verse 14 says to "not have company" with those who aren't obeying, which doesn't necessarily mean ignoring them. It even says to "admonish" the person, which obviously requires speaking to them. For example, I know plenty of people who aren't Christians. I don't really hang out with them, but if I see them in the store or something, I don't ignore them either. I can't imagine any benefit of shunning them, in the sense of pretending they don't exist in every social setting. All that does is make us look like jerks.

 

[Wormwood]

I would agree that the biblical command to exclude someone from fellowship would not likely include the silent treatment or pretending they do not exist. How else would someone know if they did repent and were in a place to be reinstated in the community? I think it does include refusing to fellowship, socialize and administer communion to the person as a part of the community of faith. I think any type of social activity that comes across as if its just "life as usual" is what is being prohibited. Ignoring the person and pretending you don't see them seems more vindictive than restorative.

 

[HammerStone]

Ah, what was that meme verse?

"Go and keep on sinning the more." #thingsJesusneversaid

Rather, I am pretty sure the phrase was "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). I believe, have lived and revel in the grace of the Lord. I am a walking, talking example of not being too far away from God at any point that I was irredeemable. I still stumble.

Yet any time we come across Jesus reclining with the sinners, men and women walk out with their lives changed and on a different course. Those who did not change course were rebuked, so as far as I am concerned, one cannot have their Pharisaical cake and eat it, too. Just in case we miss it, the Pharisees were rebuked. If the Savior of mankind calls you a snake in a den of snakes...well, you get the picture. He didn't use that for the Mary Magdalenes of the world. Why? Because repentance.

That said, I've viewed the correct application of shunning as a Biblically-sanctioned practice. My evidence is 1 Timothy 1:18-20 HCSB:

Timothy, my son, I am giving you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies previously made about you, so that by them you may strongly engage in battle, having faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and have suffered the shipwreck of their faith. Hymenaeus and Alexander are among them, and I have delivered them to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme.

To me, this is pretty clear that there is a point of abandonment for the church. What that entails - whether some would call it shunning or not - is a careful attempt to address the church member prior to putting them out. I do not believe at any point that it entails the Amish-style shunning of not interacting with those people. However, it does clearly mean that they are not a part of the church body. In other words, the church corporate shuns them, but the individual church members should maintain a connection by speaking grace and love into their lives. I mean, based upon the assumption of a total shunning, then the church should not talk to outsiders, which we know is clearly not the case of the evangel. In order for it to be the gospel -- the good news -- it must be told!

 

[River Jordan]

Glad we could clear that up. My dad comes from an Amish(ish) background, so when I see the term "shunning", it means something very specific to me.