I need to hear more on the practice of publicly disfellowshipping as a decision by the elders, and doing it from the pulpit during a service.

I have been a member all my life and have never experienced this being done to someone.

At our church an announcement was made that if you haven't been faithful in attendance, and didn't repent of it and correct it that your name would be read out loud as someone to be separated from unless you repented.I am not sure how many chances one gets to repent of this. It could get fairly complicated.I am horrified.I thought that public horrible sins that brought public disgrace on the church was the reason for disfellowshipping and shunning.

The congregation was exhorted to report when their absences were due to vacations and business trip so that the attendance records could reflect that and the absences wouldn't be counted against you.



The reason given for this practice is that attendance at church is a commandment, taking communion is a commandment and worship is a commandment and when you are not at church, you are not doing any of the above.Therefore you are committing public sin.In addition, if the elders decide that there are to be some kind of services on other days of the week beside Wedndesday and Sunday, then it is the duty of the members to attend.

I think this is frightening and emotional abuse and abusive of one's families as well.And abusive of all that have to witness this. Shaming people because they are not totally committed to going to church every time the doors are open, and if they don't 'shape' up then kicking them out seems vaguely totalitarian to me.

Where are the scriptures CLEARLY calling for being kicked out or publicly shamed from the pulpit for not attending church regularly? Or actually for any other reason? is reading names from the pulpit like this ever justified in the scripture? Can't members names simply be removed from the church rolls and them notified privately? It seems someone who would do this publicly when someone has not commited major public sin which has brought shame on the church, is misinterpreting the scriptures pertaining to having nothing to do with those in the congregation currently living in or participating in horrendous sin publicly.

In addition, a person can only be 'kicked' out of a congregation, not the Lord's church. So what is the real point of elders doing this? They just don't want that person in Their congregation? Elders do not have the authority to separate any man or woman from God or the fellowship,,,,,I grew up in the church and this practice is foreign, noxious and evil to me.The consequences of this to families, friends and the person are terrible. What if someone is mentally or emotionally ill? This could push someone over the edge.

And by the way, shunning people will MAKE someone emotionally ill;people who aren't talked to at church much because of previous sin know what I am talking about; reading someone's name from the pulpit ought to just about finish them off.

I thought surely someone would have responded to you by now with a biblical answer but since no one has here is a study I completed about a year ago on the subject. It is by no means exhaustive but maybe it will get you started.

A Study of 1 Corinthians 5
Mitchell Skelton

The Problem
A man professing to be a brother in Christ was living an openly immoral life. Instead of being filled with grief over this brother’s sin the Corinthians were proud to call him a brother. Paul says, under divine inspiration, to put him out of their fellowship and hand him over to Satan. It seems that Paul is intervening to correct a problem that had gotten out of hand because of the Corinthians’ failure to follow Jesus’ command in Matthew 18 concerning an erring brother.
Paul’s Solution
When we exegete scripture we must do so carefully and with a sound hermeneutic. Paul is here dealing with an urgent problem in the Corinthian church that arose from a failure to follow the teachings of Christ. Paul’s ability to deal with this problem is beyond our reach today. Paul can pass judgement on this man, though he was not physically there, because of the power of the Holy Spirit within him as an apostle. (vs. 3–4)
James Burton Coffman translates this passage as follows:
“Paul said, ‘I do not have to be present in Corinth to judge such a shameful sin as this. My spirit is already with you in the general assembly which I now order you to convene for the purpose of throwing the offender out.’”
Verse five continues Paul’s judgement on this man. While some things about this verse are not clear, there are some things about it that are clear. The judgement Paul here made could have been pronounced and executed only by an apostle of Christ. Adam Clarke comments on these verses:
“No such power as this remains in the church of God; none such should be assumed; and the pretensions to it are as wicked as they are vain. It was the same power by which Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead and Elymas the Sorcerer struck blind. Apostles alone were intrusted with it.”
We know that this idea of “delivering over to Satan” must be limited in this case as an Apostolic power because of other scripture concerning correction in the bible. When one encounters obscure or hard to understand passages such as this our only way of interpreting them is to do so in light of easier to understand passages. It is dangerous indeed to establish a doctrine based upon only one passage of scripture, and it being obscure at best. Since we know that the inspired word of God does not contradict itself, we are safe in interpreting these passages by looking to other scripture that speak to the same idea.
We must define the purpose of “church discipline” according to scripture. In Matthew 18:15 Jesus says, 15“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” Galatians 6:1–2 states “1Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. ” The purpose of “church discipline” according to scripture is to restore the erring brother to Christ.
Many widely received, great minds of the church advocate that Matthew 18 refers only to private offences and reject it’s application to so–called “public” offences. Yet upon what authority is such a limitation founded? The above view cannot be supported by scripture. When this view is attempted to be supported, the scriptures used simply do not apply. Many cite 1 Timothy 5:20 “20Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”Where in scripture is the authority to do so and omit the first and second admonition? Scripture supports the application of the first and second admonition to “public” sins and “private” ones. “10Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,” What could be more public than one who is divisive and trying to cause a split in the church? This does not mean that there is never the necessity to ultimately expose wrong–doers publicly, but we must affirm that this can only be done scripturally after the first and second admonitions.
Christ’s plan for correction places the burden squarely upon us as individual brothers and sisters. Christ’s idea is, when a brother is found “in sin” and this becomes known to another, that brother goes to them privately, not to condemn but to restore. If restoration does not take place after this then the words of Christ bind the same brother to carry with him only one or two others, these would be brothers or sisters who are spiritually minded (Gal. 6:1) and their purpose would be the same as the first visit, to restore not to condemn. If all these efforts fail then and only then should the matter be made public and again the purpose is so that the whole church may plead with the transgressor to repent and be restored. If after this has taken place and there is still no restoration, then the church should withdraw from the offender, not to shame the person, but to restore!
I think it important that we are very careful in the way we handle the pronouncement of the offence or the withdrawing of fellowship from someone. Christ, in His instruction on this matter in Matthew 18, says “tell it to the church.” The Greek word used for church here is Ekklesia meaning called out, assembly or church. Jesus’ use of this word was not new to those Jewish people who were hearing him. The Ekklesia was a word frequently used as a designation of Israel as the covenant community of God. Thus, when such pronouncements are made, they should be made only before the Ekklesia, those people now recognized as the covenant community of God. Such pronouncements should not be made at a regular worship service where many who are not a part of the Ekklesia are attending. Rather, a special meeting of the saints should be called for the express purpose of making such a sad proclamation. Only those who are part of the Ekklesia (baptized believers) should be present. There should be no visitors, no children, and certainly no unbelievers present at such an assembly. Some might object that this would be a hindrance in the process of administering church “discipline,” however, I believe that a matter of such grave importance as this not only deserves but demands the effort to be put forth. If brethren are not willing to make the necessary effort required to help bring an erring brother or sister back into a right relationship with the Lord then I would say that such brethren have bigger problems than discipline matters in their congregation.

The assembly (ekklesia or synagogue of Christ) cannot fulfil its roles to be a visual display against the principalities and powers in heavenly places if it tolerates immorality (which proves to the powers that Christ does not rule) or false teaching (which proves that the written word of the Living Word does not rule.)

However, the law courts have proven that you do not have the right to publically expose people before the world. The divorced lady in Oklahoma proved that with loads of $$ hurt.

The elders should seek legal counsel and make sure that they do not ABUSE the laws or else the abused person can make you hurt. Being Scripturally correct will not protect you in a church as a "society" which does not have SYNAGOGUING as its role and is attended and supported on a voluntary basis.

Ken Sublett

Very thought provoking answers.Thanks. In this situation all members' names and addresses are printed on sheets and available in the front of the building. The elders encouraged every member to write or call these people to help them see 'the error of their ways' in forsaking the assembly.

There is no church split going on; these are just people who for one reason or another have quit coming.I fail to see, beyond a call from the elders, and concerned members, in private, what else the public announcement would do beyond shaming these people. I am afraid Ken is right, this kind of thing could easily be seen as emotional abuse, handled in this manner.And yes, the announcement was at worship time Sunday AM, and all children and visitors were present.

The only other situation like this I have heard about-besides the one Ken is speaking of- is worse:is one where a man and a woman were getting a divorce because of his adultery. This was announced before the entire assembly -including the couple's four young children- and he was disfellowshipped.He had stopped going to church:) Unfortunately, none of the four children went to church during all and beyond their high school years. Those who were there recall the children crying as they heard the announcement.Lets just say the church did not rally around the family. They were not mistreated but they were not exactly 'included' anymore either.Really the whole family was punished for what the husband and the church did in response.

I really believe that some of our members need to take some basic courses about what constitutes abuse, or go to counselling. This sounds like the Puritan days.