Excommunication / Shunning / The Ban

[Josh]

Wow, that's a blanket condemnation. Wonder if God agrees.

I would say it's an observation, not a condemnation. Do you believe God is pleased with the mainline churches in the west, do they represent his spotless bride?

Pardon the late reply--I just returned home from prison.

A question for you. Do you believe God is pleased with any group at all that allows sexual abuse to continue in its midst, which I dare say includes most any Christian group of this age?

No, and I’ve sacrificed my reputation, changed churches, and gone to a lot of effort to deal with it when I’ve uncovered it. If we all did this, things would be a lot better.

[nett]

Pardon the late reply--I just returned home from prison.

A question for you. Do you believe God is pleased with any group at all that allows sexual abuse to continue in its midst, which I dare say includes most any Christian group of this age?

Define "Allows"? I certainly don't tolerate it. All human groups will struggle with this, 1% of people are psychopaths. Plain anabaptists do not have a higher incidence than normal of sexual abuse, it's just that the sin is so stark relative to their lifestyle, it's easy to blow it up, and create "By Their Words" type hysteria.

[nett]

This shows that rules will not change what believers can do in their private lives. And we can preach against things like murder and adultery but Jesus said we can be guilty of these without others knowing about them. We do them in our minds.

The answer, I believe, is to first acknowledge that a believer will be tempted by three base enemies of the soul - the world, the flesh and the devil. These are the enemies of God - 1 John 2.15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him". So, the world is opposed to the Father. In Galatians 5.17 regarding the flesh - "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other". Then concerning the devil, Jesus says: "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14.30). Are these being preached and what is being preached on how to recognize and how to resist them ?

I don't believe the NT teaches that we can resist these by our own human power. So, what power do we need and how do we get this power ? Is this being preached ? No one can live the Christian life on their own will power. It can't be done.

What do we do when we slip up and give way to one of these three enemies ?

What is meant by walking in the Spirit and putting on the full armour of God ?

Perhaps some of the failings are due to the lack of teachings that point us to how we need the Holy Spirit working in our lives.

The obvious response from the church in the past was to flee temptation, and be above reproach. For some reason, most have completely lost sight of that. How young porn addicts do we need before the church starts preaching against the internet, like it's preached against alcohol in the past?

[Soloist]

This shows that rules will not change what believers can do in their private lives. And we can preach against things like murder and adultery but Jesus said we can be guilty of these without others knowing about them. We do them in our minds.

The answer, I believe, is to first acknowledge that a believer will be tempted by three base enemies of the soul - the world, the flesh and the devil. These are the enemies of God - 1 John 2.15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him". So, the world is opposed to the Father. In Galatians 5.17 regarding the flesh - "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other". Then concerning the devil, Jesus says: "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14.30). Are these being preached and what is being preached on how to recognize and how to resist them ?

I don't believe the NT teaches that we can resist these by our own human power. So, what power do we need and how do we get this power ? Is this being preached ? No one can live the Christian life on their own will power. It can't be done.

What do we do when we slip up and give way to one of these three enemies ?

What is meant by walking in the Spirit and putting on the full armour of God ?

Perhaps some of the failings are due to the lack of teachings that point us to how we need the Holy Spirit working in our lives.

The obvious response from the church in the past was to flee temptation, and be above reproach. For some reason, most have completely lost sight of that. How young porn addicts do we need before the church starts preaching against the internet, like it's preached against alcohol in the past?

At the same time, there is an emptiness that cannot be filled with standards and good teaching.

[Sudsy]

This shows that rules will not change what believers can do in their private lives. And we can preach against things like murder and adultery but Jesus said we can be guilty of these without others knowing about them. We do them in our minds.

The answer, I believe, is to first acknowledge that a believer will be tempted by three base enemies of the soul - the world, the flesh and the devil. These are the enemies of God - 1 John 2.15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him". So, the world is opposed to the Father. In Galatians 5.17 regarding the flesh - "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other". Then concerning the devil, Jesus says: "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14.30). Are these being preached and what is being preached on how to recognize and how to resist them ?

I don't believe the NT teaches that we can resist these by our own human power. So, what power do we need and how do we get this power ? Is this being preached ? No one can live the Christian life on their own will power. It can't be done.

What do we do when we slip up and give way to one of these three enemies ?

What is meant by walking in the Spirit and putting on the full armour of God ?

Perhaps some of the failings are due to the lack of teachings that point us to how we need the Holy Spirit working in our lives.

The obvious response from the church in the past was to flee temptation, and be above reproach. For some reason, most have completely lost sight of that. How young porn addicts do we need before the church starts preaching against the internet, like it's preached against alcohol in the past?

At the same time, there is an emptiness that cannot be filled with standards and good teaching.

Agree. If that emptiness is not filled with the Holy Spirit, then we will give way to temptations to sin. God always provides a way of escape for us when temptations present themselves (1 cor 10:13) and we can know what that is if we are being Spirit lead believers. Sometimes it may be to flee and other times to stand firm and resist.

If one cannot be on the Internet and stick to things that are beneficial to your spiritual life, then the solution may be to log off for good. Even on forums like this there are threads that can do one more spiritual harm than good and we must make choices where to participate and where not. Carnal Christians can tempt us into all kinds of subjects that result in things like discord, strife, arguments, even hatred of other believers. Sometimes they start out with good intentions but at some point we know within, if we are Spirit sensitive, the discussion is not God honoring and the escape is to just leave that thread.

I think Paul's advice to the Philippians is one that can solve much in staying on track -

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

One of the biggest temptations I find is taking on the same concerns as unbelievers have. Acknowledging them is one thing, but taking on the same anxieties and arguments they have is not the way we now are to live as new creations. Keeping an eternal perspective is so important.

Back to the last post re: the emptiness feeling - perhaps the youth do not see a more attractive life in how we serve the Lord and want it for themselves. Am I experiencing that abundant life Jesus talked about or does my life reflect a lack of the fruit of the Spirit. What is my view of what it means to walk in the Spirit ? I'm running out of years here and have wasted many of them not being lead by the Spirit. Most of that I believe is not listening to the voice of the Spirit but rather allowing my mind to go wherever it wants to.

Anyway, I'll shut up and work on practicing what I preach. Would love to hear what others have to say about how we can be a better influence on the youth to want what we have in living the abundant life.

[Joy]

Pardon the late reply--I just returned home from prison.

A question for you. Do you believe God is pleased with any group at all that allows sexual abuse to continue in its midst, which I dare say includes most any Christian group of this age?

Define "Allows"? I certainly don't tolerate it. All human groups will struggle with this, 1% of people are psychopaths. Plain anabaptists do not have a higher incidence than normal of sexual abuse, it's just that the sin is so stark relative to their lifestyle, it's easy to blow it up, and create "By Their Words" type hysteria.

I'm not suggesting that Anabaptists rank higher in perverted sexual sins. See highlighted quote above.

This passage could shed light on the practice of allowing major sexual sin/sweeping it under the rug when it becomes public knowledge/rationalizing it away:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. [1Cor. 5:1-5]

[nett]

I'm not suggesting that Anabaptists rank higher in perverted sexual sins. See highlighted quote above.

This passage could shed light on the practice of allowing major sexual sin/sweeping it under the rug when it becomes public knowledge/rationalizing it away:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. [1Cor. 5:1-5]

I agree that sweeping this stuff under the rug is really bad, and especially when it involves protecting powerful, influential people.

I would say that is one of the most mysterious passes in the entire NT to me. I seriously have no idea what it means in terms of how Paul judged that situation, or how it relates to us doing the same.

[Sudsy]

I'm not suggesting that Anabaptists rank higher in perverted sexual sins. See highlighted quote above.

This passage could shed light on the practice of allowing major sexual sin/sweeping it under the rug when it becomes public knowledge/rationalizing it away:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. [1Cor. 5:1-5]

I agree that sweeping this stuff under the rug is really bad, and especially when it involves protecting powerful, influential people.

I would say that is one of the most mysterious passes in the entire NT to me. I seriously have no idea what it means in terms of how Paul judged that situation, or how it relates to us doing the same.

Seems the who said quote marks got messed up - my reply is as follows -

I thought this worth reading on this 1 Cor 5 text - https://enduringword.com/bible-commenta ... nthians-5/

[temporal1]

2024
P.9 / Questions for Catholics and Orthodox
viewtopic.php?t=6602&start=80

No, there was nothing wrong with your question other than I just could not imagine it being of much interest.
FWWIW, I used to appreciate Vigano’s thoughts. Clearly he held a very important position as nuncio (essentially ambassador) to the US

But while I have some sympathy for his frustrations with the Pope, who I consider a terrible church leader, Vigano has really crossed the line. I sincerely believe there is something wrong with him. I have concern and pity rather than condemnation.

But the disputes that involve Vigano are simply personal.
There is no doctrinal or dogmatic changes coming from either side because of his disputes with the [Pope]

It was of interest because I know what excommunication means in our own circles.

My grandfather was excommunicated because he opposed a liberal preacher who wanted to show secular movies in the church house. That same minister threatened to excommunicate my mom and my aunt, but found that he couldn't, because they were just visiting there, and were members elsewhere. I've also seen what it does to families here, in my wife's community, and among her people.

Also, I agree with what little I saw of Vigano's complaints. (In the BBC article where I saw it, no mention was made of a personality conflict. It appeared to be about church doctrine and practice. Maybe they didn't present an accurate picture, I don't know.)

But mostly I just wondered about exactly what I asked: What are his options, as a Catholic. I don't know Catholicism, and was curious. Excommunication may seem like a laughing matter to some, but not to me.

Neto,
i just noticed your response here.

i’m interested in the long history of shunning, and current thinking.
i find it interesting how, in times past, even in my lifetime, shunning was widely used in churches, in most if not all Christian denoms, and in other religions, and in families, religious or not.

in history, in families, family members could be “disowned,” which was a grave consequence, people really believed they had the power to remove family members, “cutting all ties,” in extreme and unforgiving ways.

in my view, discovery of DNA concretely reveals, humans do not have that power, to forever disown.
DNA reveals, we may be physically divided, and/or divided in many ways, DNA stays with us, no matter time/distance, differences.

contemporary psychiatry recognizes shunning as of the harshest practices humans can employ.
science follows God - - not quickly, but, eventually.

a secular view:

Shunning: The Ultimate Rejection
What does it mean when we shun others or are shunned?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -rejection

shunning has scriptural basis, and can be abused. understanding the gravity involved might help prevent abuse.
shunning is meant to hurt, and it does. use with caution.

- - -

nett, the OP, left MN in 2022:

I've decided to join the ranks of those anabaptists who do not use the internet in their home, or have smartphones. As such, I will no longer be active on mennonet.

I would like to thank Robert for taking the time to set up, maintain and moderate this forum.

I would also like to issue a blanket apologize for the hostile things I said here that I doubt I would have said face to face. I have many areas in which I need to grow.

[Neto]

2024
P.9 / Questions for Catholics and Orthodox
viewtopic.php?t=6602&start=80

No, there was nothing wrong with your question other than I just could not imagine it being of much interest.
FWWIW, I used to appreciate Vigano’s thoughts. Clearly he held a very important position as nuncio (essentially ambassador) to the US

But while I have some sympathy for his frustrations with the Pope, who I consider a terrible church leader, Vigano has really crossed the line. I sincerely believe there is something wrong with him. I have concern and pity rather than condemnation.

But the disputes that involve Vigano are simply personal.
There is no doctrinal or dogmatic changes coming from either side because of his disputes with the [Pope]

It was of interest because I know what excommunication means in our own circles.

My grandfather was excommunicated because he opposed a liberal preacher who wanted to show secular movies in the church house. That same minister threatened to excommunicate my mom and my aunt, but found that he couldn't, because they were just visiting there, and were members elsewhere. I've also seen what it does to families here, in my wife's community, and among her people.

Also, I agree with what little I saw of Vigano's complaints. (In the BBC article where I saw it, no mention was made of a personality conflict. It appeared to be about church doctrine and practice. Maybe they didn't present an accurate picture, I don't know.)

But mostly I just wondered about exactly what I asked: What are his options, as a Catholic. I don't know Catholicism, and was curious. Excommunication may seem like a laughing matter to some, but not to me.

Neto,
i just noticed your response here.

i’m interested in the long history of shunning, and current thinking.
i find it interesting how, in times past, even in my lifetime, shunning was widely used in churches, in most if not all Christian denoms, and in other religions, and in families, religious or not.

in history, in families, family members could be “disowned,” which was a grave consequence, people really believed they had the power to remove family members, “cutting all ties,” in extreme and unforgiving ways.

in my view, discovery of DNA concretely reveals, humans do not have that power, to forever disown.
DNA reveals, we may be physically divided, and/or divided in many ways, DNA stays with us, no matter time/distance, differences.

contemporary psychiatry recognizes shunning as of the harshest practices humans can employ.
science follows God - - not quickly, but, eventually.

a secular view:

Shunning: The Ultimate Rejection
What does it mean when we shun others or are shunned?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -rejection

shunning has scriptural basis, and can be abused. understanding the gravity involved might help prevent abuse.
shunning is meant to hurt, and it does. use with caution.

- - -

nett, the OP, left MN in 2022:

I've decided to join the ranks of those anabaptists who do not use the internet in their home, or have smartphones. As such, I will no longer be active on mennonet.

I would like to thank Robert for taking the time to set up, maintain and moderate this forum.

I would also like to issue a blanket apologize for the hostile things I said here that I doubt I would have said face to face. I have many areas in which I need to grow.

We were camping with our church age-group last weekend, and some of us still go out on the nearby biking trail. The second time my wife & I went, it was just us and another couple. The man I was with told me about a case in his family where a relative left the Amish and was shunned by family to the extent that even many, many years later, after the person died, some of the siblings barely came to the funeral, and made excuses to not stay for the after funeral meal, apparently so that they wouldn't be "sitting down to meat" at a meal in the deceased's honor. As he told this story to me, he used distinctive terms for excommunication vs shunning. My understanding of this is that shunning is what the individuals do, and excommunication is what the church leaders do. Some people in these groups claim to be following the teaching of Menno Simons in this. Generally, they are not. He taught the use of excommunication and shunning only in cases of persistent sin as mentioned in the Scripture. It is too often misused in some groups, and other groups fail to use it at all, in disobedience to the commands of God in Scripture.