Examining Excommunication
INTRODUCTION
An article from the Friends of Truth (FOT) Website entitled "Excommunication and Restoration", written by Bruce Murdoch and Bob Williston, has compelled me to consider how and why people are excommunicated within the Truth Fellowship. (click here to view the entire article) Just as the FOT article begins with a disclaimer, I will add one of my own. Because I left the group at age 18, I did not have exposure to anyone who has been excommunicated; however, I have read the testimonies of many former members who claim to have undergone this process. Therefore, I will base my impression of the 2x2 form of excommunication upon those people I've been in contact with in addition, of course, to the FOT article which is written from the perspective of those still professing.
THE BASIS FOR EXCOMMUNICATION
I do not necessarily have a philosophical problem with excommunication, per se. "The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is a society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
In other words, any society has the right to exclude those members whose behavior is detrimental to themselves or others, and there are numerous real-world examples. If an oil company has an employee who steals from them and is not productive and interferes with the work of others, that company has the right to fire that person. To some extent this is an excommunication because it is done so that the company "may be well administered and survive". The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame has banned Pete Rose, who set the record for most base hits of all time, because they think he bet on baseball games, which not only calls into question the outcome of those games he played in but also damages the integrity of the game. Therefore, Pete Rose has been "excommunicated". In a similar way, a church (be it the Truth Fellowship or the Roman Catholic Church or otherwise), is just as much of a society as Major League Baseball or an oil company and therefore has the right (and responsibility) to make decisions in the the best interests of that society.
Excommunication has a biblical basis as well. The Jews practiced it - examples of the threat of being "put out of the synagogue" are seen in Scripture (Jn 12:42, Jn 16:2); Jesus warned His disciples that the Jews might excommunicate them for preaching the gospel (Luke 6:22), and indeed, the parents of the blind man were afraid that they might be put out of the synagogue for this very reason: "These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue." (John 9:22)
Similarly, when the newly Christianized Corinthians began reverting back to their pagan ways of incest, etc., Paul would excommunicate them (1 Cor 5:5). The much worse offense of blasphemy by Hymenaeus and Alexander was also "delivered unto Satan" by Paul (1 Tim 1:20). This authority was given by Jesus to Peter at first and then later extended to the rest of the Apostles ""Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Mt 16:18-19). This authority to "bind and loose" refers to the rabbinical practice of not only remitting sins but also instituting corrective punishment as a corporate entity (Mt 18:17-18). As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "it is not only the remission of sins that is referred to, but likewise all spiritual jurisdiction, including judicial and penal sanctions". This is what Jesus meant when he told Peter to "feed my lambs" and "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17). The Greek term in this phrase is poimaine, which does not mean to simply provide food, it means "to lead, rule, or govern".
THE PRESENT PRACTICE
According to the FOT article, the most common form is when someone is asked to "stop taking part" in meetings, which invariably includes refraining from the "sacraments". It appears that the person is still allowed to attend meeting in most cases, but that person is not allowed to give his or her testimony or partake of the emblems. Murdoch and Williston go on to say that "on rare occasions individuals are ejected, and ministers have been known to stand guard outside the meeting home to prevent their return. Also, on rare occasions, individuals are banished - expected not to communicate in any way with others of our fellowship."
There can also be a sort of "preemptive" excommunication, where workers will not extend an invitation to someone to profess or even tell that person that they "may not make a profession among us". The authors do not elaborate on the reasons why someone may not be extended an invitation, but they do discuss reasons why someone may be excommunicated later. It is troubling to me that it is possible that a person who is sincerely interested in professing for the first time may not be extended an invitation to do so, or even be told by a worker outright that he or she may not profess. This practice might seem particularly irksome when the reasons for excommunication are given later in this article.
PURPOSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
The authors correctly state that "we are our brother's keeper". It is the Church's responsibility to do all it can to help members in their walk with God. Excommunication is the last resort, but even so, it is not meant to be solely a punitive action - it is designed to help that person be restored to the fullness of faith. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.
The purpose of excommunication, then, is to compell the person involved to repentance, as the CE states, "It [excommunication] necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence." According to the FOT, the terms for reconciliation vary widely, but usually involve some form of repentance and confession, which is certainly an appropriate course of action. Even in Paul's excommunication of those Corinthians, he tells us the ultimate purpose for doing so: "so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor 5:5).
CAUSE FOR EXCOMMUNICATION
The authors state that "one of the problematic aspects of excommunication is the reasons for which it is practiced". I was surprised to learn that Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Williston think that it is probably used in cases of sexual immorality and corruption in business dealings. This is silly - if any church excommunicated everyone guilty of sexual immorality, it would have very few members!
Even more astounding was their claim that "except for its use on the occasional minister, it is virtually unknown for it to be practiced because of disputes on doctrine". This is ridiculous, as the Catholic Encylopedia states, "Catholics, on the contrary, cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act. While sexual immorality and/or corrupt business dealings are sins which injure our relationship with God and can separate us from Him, they are not inherently "grievously offensive acts. The Catholic Church considers grievously offensive acts to be precisely involved in matters of doctrine:
"All apostates from the Christian Faith, heretics of every name and sect, and those who give them credence, who receive or countenance them, and generally all those who take up their defence." Strictly speaking, an apostate is one who goes over to a non Christian religion, e.g. Islam; to such apostates are assimilated those who publicly renounce all religion; this apostasy is not to be presumed; it is evident that both kinds of apostates exclude themselves from the Church. A heretic is one who rejects a Catholic dogma. The first to be considered is the heretic who becomes such of his own volition; who, being in the Catholic Church, obstinately repudiates a truth of faith. Excommunication is incurred by him, if, with full knowledge, he exteriorly formulates an heretical proposition; and if he seeks to propagate his error he is dogmatizans and should be denounced. Next comes the heretic who belongs to an heretical association; for such a person his heretical membership alone is sufficient to bring him under sentence of excommunication. In his case the penalty is incurred by adhesion to the heresy, notably by wilful and active participation in sacris (i.e. in public worship) with heretics; hence the excommunication of those who contract a mixed marriage before an heretical minister as such (Holy Office, 28 Aug., 1888). Finally, the penalty extends to those who believe in heretics (credentes) and join their ranks; to those who receive them, i.e. who give them shelter in their homes, so as to protect them from the pursuit of authority; and to those who countenance or defend them as heretics and in view of the heresy, provided it be a positive and efficacious assistance. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
A full discussion of the reasons for excommunication from the Catholic Church can be read at the Catholic Encyclopedia online link in Section VII EXCOMMUNICATIONS LATĘ SENTENTIĘ NOW IN FORCE under the entry "Excommunication". Let us now turn, however, to the examples presented in the FOT article as causes of excommunication:
types of entertainment used and present in homes (including sports)
kinds of people they maintain friendships with
marriage to people outside the fellowship
inappropriate appearance (hair style, clothing style and color, etc.)
lying
The striking contrast between reasons for excommunication from the 2x2 fellowship and the Catholic Church exposes one of the more disturbing aspects of the 2x2 Fellowship. Types of entertainment which were forbidden in the past included owning a television or radio, going to movies or concerts, and watching or participating in sporting events. It was my experience that these rules have relaxed a little bit, such that while my family did not have a television, I was allowed to participate in sports and listen to music, etc. I understand the reason for these; however, I think that they are overly regulatory and do not allow for the individual discernment of what is good or bad. In other words, a television is not inherently evil - you can get your information from the news channels or watch programs which are edifying and uplifting. The workers, however, do not allow members to even decide for themselves. Not only that, but the workers place restrictions on how they dress. This excessive regulation of simple activities of daily living is an unhealthy legalistic behavior. The question that must be answered is this: is it "grievously offensive" to profess while owning a television? Is it "grievously offensive" to not style your hair in the right way, or dress in such a way that the workers disapprove? Would Jesus have avoided friendships with people outside His group of disciples? Do not misunderstand, there is value in an ascetic lifestyle (see Asceticism article); however, these things should be suggested for the purpose of bringing one closer to God, not as a means of exclusion from the Truth Fellowship. What is grievously offensive to me is the fact that the one thing that can destroy a professing person's beliefs and relationships within the group is ALSO, as Murdoch and Williston admit, "one of the most arbitrarily used actions of the ministry".
HOW EXCOMMUNICATION IS CARRIED OUT
The authors rightly wonder "about the competence of the [workers] to recommend counseling" for those who have been excommunicated. I go one step further, however, and question the competence of workers to excommunicate in the first place, much less be considered authoritative preachers. After all, we're talking about men or women who, for whatever reasons, have "heard the call" and suddenly became a worker. There is no formal theological training, no biblical ordination, and certainly not any education in how to counsel or make therapeautic recommendations. This problem is made more acute by the authors' startling admission that when a professing person is excommunicated, the reason given is done so "in terms that are not specific", if at all. They say that "the reason for one's exclusion is usually included, meaning that sometimes the reason is not given.
This is another one of the disturbing aspects of 2x2 excommunication. Common decency demands that if a person is going to be excommunicated, he or she should know exactly what they did wrong. This is even more imperative if the ultimate motive for excommunication by a worker is, ostensibly, to help that person make the necessary changes to be restored back into the fellowship! If I don't know what I did wrong, how in the world can I be expected to figure out what to change? This behavior by workers indicates to me that the 2x2 practice of excommunication is mostly meant to punish and get rid of someone, rather than to help them. The excommunicated person simply must know the charges against him:it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Just as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault. Not only would it be wrong for a Christian to be punished without having committed a punishable act, but justice demands a proportion between the offence and the penalty; hence the most serious of spiritual chastisements, i.e. forfeiture of all the privileges common to Christians, is inconceivable unless for a grave fault. (CE)
We're talking about a person's eternal salvation being at stake, so it is essential that the problem is defined explicitly. A person who is imprisoned for stealing a car is not executed by lethal injection because of it; by corollary, a convict should not pay with his life on the electric chair for a crime, the details about which "are not specific". Because there are those Friends and Workers who truly believe that theirs is the "only Way", I assert that it is absolutely inexcusable to bar someone from their only chance for salvation without a) telling them what they did wrong and b) providing the conditions for reparation and restoration.
CONCLUSION
Excommunication has its place. It should be reserved for grievously offensive acts or for people who reject formally defined doctrines of a group, and therefore should NOT include having the wrong kind of entertainment, dressing differently, having the wrong type of friends, etc. I am disgusted by the thought of a worker telling someone that they will not be given an invitation to profess simply because they haven't cut their hair, etc., and I am saddened to learn of formerly-professing people who were excommunicated for similar reasons. The authors admit that "then there are cases which defy explanation - like the man who was required to get married before he could return to meetings, this despite the fact that he had cancer and was infected with AIDS." Is this what Jesus would have told him? I don't think so. These are the actions of a leadership which makes inconsistent and contradictory decisions over less important issues at the expense of helping its members in their faith formation. I happen to like the comment that Murdoch and Williston make on the passage in John 9:13-34, where the Pharisees threatened to cast people out of the synagogue. They say, "This example shows that excommunication can be a practice of the self-righteous, denying that God can work with anyone at anytime anywhere." Sadly, I think that they could easily have been referring to the workers.........
|back|