On an Elder's Ability to Ban Church Members

[Gwallard]

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I am currently studying this issue, and I would be greatly blessed by your help.

The question is on whether or not an elder may ban one of the members of his or any other flock from the church body. I am defining banning as "a public declaration by a session to effect a sustained removal of a person (whether a member of that local church or no) from the church building’s premises with or without conditions for reconciliation, and without the courts of the church or the state courts or powers involved." I am distinguishing this from excommunication, because excommunication is a declaration that the person excommunicated is no longer a part of the body of Christ. Banning also differs in that excommunication does not - as far as I know - bar an individual from coming to the church premises, but is a Spiritual use of the keys that the person excommunicated might be brought back into familial and sacramental communion.

This seems to deal with many areas and levels of ecclesiology, and I would love some help in answering this question and help in finding resources, which seem to be scant. I can only find this type of banning present in regular practice in the Anabaptists (see "A Calvinist and Anabaptist Understanding of the Ban" by Matthew Harding). Would any of you know of a resource which is polemical against Anabaptist ecclesiology, or dealt with these types of issues? Have you dealt with such a case before, and what were your findings or actions?

Love to you, beloved brothers and sisters in Christ,
-G

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Hi G, please fix your signature per the rules following the instructions at the link at the base of the page.

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I am currently studying this issue, and I would be greatly blessed by your help.

The question is on whether or not an elder may ban one of the members of his or any other flock from the church body. I am defining banning as "a public declaration by a session to effect a sustained removal of a person (whether a member of that local church or no) from the church building’s premises with or without conditions for reconciliation, and without the courts of the church or the state courts or powers involved." I am distinguishing this from excommunication, because excommunication is a declaration that the person excommunicated is no longer a part of the body of Christ. Banning also differs in that excommunication does not - as far as I know - bar an individual from coming to the church premises, but is a Spiritual use of the keys that the person excommunicated might be brought back into familial and sacramental communion.

This seems to deal with many areas and levels of ecclesiology, and I would love some help in answering this question and help in finding resources, which seem to be scant. I can only find this type of banning present in regular practice in the Anabaptists (see "A Calvinist and Anabaptist Understanding of the Ban" by Matthew Harding). Would any of you know of a resource which is polemical against Anabaptist ecclesiology, or dealt with these types of issues? Have you dealt with such a case before, and what were your findings or actions?

Love to you, beloved brothers and sisters in Christ,
-G

 

[Gwallard]

Hi G, please fix your signature per the rules following the instructions at the link at the base of the page.

Thank you, sir! I hope it is in good order now.

 

[Guido's Brother]

I have encountered a situation where the elders of a Reformed church attempted to prevent an excommunicated individual from attending public worship. In my view, that goes beyond what Scripture teaches. We should be glad that an excommunicated person still sits under the means of grace -- after all, the purpose of excommunication as the "ultimate remedy" is to yet lead that person to repentance and salvation. Church discipline should always have this restorative focus, even after excommunication.

 

[dhh712]

Hey there, Grant. I may not be of much help but I do not recall anything about that sort of banning from the Bible. It appears to me that that sort of banning would fall under legal considerations, such as if that person would have a legal reason to not be allowed in the church (i.e. perhaps there is a restraining order against him or her in regards to a member of the church).

I have encountered a situation where the elders of a Reformed church attempted to prevent an excommunicated individual from attending public worship. In my view, that goes beyond what Scripture teaches. We should be glad that an excommunicated person still sits under the means of grace -- after all, the purpose of excommunication as the "ultimate remedy" is to yet lead that person to repentance and salvation. Church discipline should always have this restorative focus, even after excommunication.

I agree, Wes, that action does not seem to accord with what Jesus teaches us about excommunication. I think it may be a difficult thing to do since we are to encourage them to come back but we are not to fellowship with them in an extended way (like, if the excommunicated member is looking to go to church as an avenue for social entertainment, then there may be some difficulties in limited involvement with that person). Yet, to completely bar them from entering the church does not appear to be the Scriptural way to go about avoiding extended association with them.

 

[lynnie]

I heard of a case where a guy was violent and they would not let him inside. This was one of the Calvary churches. A friend's husband worked on the security rotation. I've heard of city churches where there is tight security. I assume you mean somebody quiet and calm, but in adultery or heresy or something? I can't help with resources, but you might want to pursue this from different angles. If there are a lot of kids running around and this is a sex offender registry thing where the elders feel compelled to protect the kids, that's different from heresy where you can probably protect the flock from the pulpit.

It would be interesting to see your final conclusions. The way the world is getting I can see this becoming a question for churches. My church generally has two hand carry guys at the service prepared to deal with intruders. We are in a lovely rural area but you just never know who might need to not be allowed in. Even a regular guy off his meds can go pretty crazy. Meth users can be trouble. You want to help them and minister to them, but maybe outside the building. Leaders need to protect the flock. Strange times.

 

[iainduguid]

The question is on whether or not an elder may ban one of the members of his or any other flock from the church body. I am defining banning as "a public declaration by a session to effect a sustained removal of a person (whether a member of that local church or no) from the church building’s premises with or without conditions for reconciliation, and without the courts of the church or the state courts or powers involved."

If the Session has made a public declaration, then the courts of the church are already involved. If the person feels it is unfair, he could appeal that decision to Presbytery (I've seen such cases come to Presbytery). Normally, it is the result of someone making such a nuisance of themselves and so disrupting the church that the Session has also applied to regular courts for a restraining order. The Session needs to make sure that they have followed their Book of Church Order, which would normally expect some kind of proper trial to take place. It isn't normally an outcome that would follow even egregious sexual sin or other moral failure, and may or may not be linked to excommunication - real Christians can sometimes behave abominably, while still maintaining an apparently credible profession of faith. The person may not necessarily be dangerous even; merely impossibly disruptive. For example, standing up in the middle of the church service each week and denouncing the Session for not advocating voting for a particular political candidate; in this case, it was linked with questions about the man's continuing mental health (he was an older gentleman), but the Session understandably felt that they had to do something to restrain this behavior.

 

[Edward]

While exigent circumstance might require immediate action to keep the peace, the matter should be reviewed and either ratified or negated by the entire session. (Your hypothetical is somewhat confusing - is it an elder, or a session that is taking an action?

Some areas where it might be appropriate
-a sex offender who breaks restrictions placed upon him or her
-a party to a messy divorce or a custody dispute
-a person that obstinately insists on open carry where the session only allows concealed carry
-a person who disrupts services

 

[Edward]

I have encountered a situation where the elders of a Reformed church attempted to prevent an excommunicated individual from attending public worship. In my view, that goes beyond what Scripture teaches.

Those of us of a Presbyterian persuasion might look to the Sixth Commandment as discussed under question 135 of the Larger Catechism. "...and protecting and defending the innocent" and say that it would depend for what they were excommunicated.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Those of us of a Presbyterian persuasion might look to the Sixth Commandment as discussed under question 135 of the Larger Catechism. "...and protecting and defending the innocent" and say that it would depend for what they were excommunicated.

Our Heidelberg Catechism says something similar. So, I see your point. I'm aware of situations where convicted (or even charged) sex offenders are told that they're not permitted to attend public worship. I can see that as justified.

 

[Gwallard]

Dr. Duguid,

Yes, I think you are right, there are times where people should be taken from the premises of the church building. Life threatening violence being the most obvious example where either immediate response (by a church security team, say), or by a more belated one (say, calling the police or a restraining order). However, in saying that the session has declared a ban, I mean that they might take upon themselves to ban and not go through the civil authorities.

Of course, the session is part of the courts of the church, but I would argue they do not have the power to be forceful on their own authority, and therefore cannot be forceful by way of banning. Of course, if by good and necessary consequence or example it can be proved the elders have this power, then I will ceed the point, but in applying general principles, I can't say banning as I've defined it is Biblical.

Romans 13 makes clear the authority of the civil government is forceful, and Matthew 16 makes clear (along with John 21 etc.) that the church's authority is spiritual, ministerial, and declarative. The church may defend itself (1 Timothy 5:18), but the church cannot initiate force like the civil government. Even in the case of excommunication, there is no forcing, simply a refusal to serve or commune. That being the case, I would argue that banning - as a form of force - is outside of the authority of the sessional courts jurisdiction. In cases of incredible disruption, the civil authorities should be called, who will apply the needed force. (However, in the case of an overtly unjust civil government, I am not sure what would be done)

Jesus did not seem to bar anyone from hearing the gospel, though he did speak in parables. The Pharisees were often disruptive, often chastened, and Jesus often Physically left them, but he never - though I may be wrong - never forced their leaving. The free offer of the gospel would say everyone should hear, and Matt 18:17 never says we are to treat those who do not listen to the church with civil force: the worst fate is to be considered as a tax collector or sinner, who are encouraged to hear the gospel and come to the church services.

I think in principle I am agreeing with most everyone's points. I have chosen to reply hopefully to you all through Dr. Duguid's gracious response because he answered fulsomely, hopefully capturing much of what everyone else was saying.

Thank you all for your replies, I am greatly blessed by your gracious use of time for me!

Love,
-G

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

 

[dhh712]

That being the case, I would argue that banning - as a form of force - is outside of the authority of the sessional courts jurisdiction. In cases of incredible disruption, the civil authorities should be called, who will apply the needed force. (However, in the case of an overtly unjust civil government, I am not sure what would be done)

Yes, it would seem the church would not possess any legal authority to physically remove someone from their property. All that can be done is for the session to come to an agreement that such a person would not be allowed on the premises, but they would have to involve civil government to carry out that decision; also not certain whether the civil government would carry out such a request. Restraining orders against a person is something I'm familiar with but not with limitations on where a person can go, such as in buildings or whatnot. If the church is considered a public building or a private one. I guess it would be public? I see how a restraining order can be seen against the "body" of the church as in all its members are one, but the government I do not believe it would see it as this way since it is a doctrinal understanding.

Jesus did not seem to bar anyone from hearing the gospel, though he did speak in parables. The Pharisees were often disruptive, often chastened, and Jesus often Physically left them, but he never - though I may be wrong - never forced their leaving. The free offer of the gospel would say everyone should hear, and Matt 18:17 never says we are to treat those who do not listen to the church with civil force: the worst fate is to be considered as a tax collector or sinner, who are encouraged to hear the gospel and come to the church services.

On disruptive people disturbing the church, I think you bring up a good point about how when Jesus preached there were often disruptive people in the midst. This may then be an opportunity then for the church to show love for its enemies rather than forceful removal, as long as they are sticking to verbal demonstrations and not taking actions to become harmful to others. This may be simpler said than done, understandably, but if we look to the Scriptures in this, it would seem there is an argument here for putting up with such people and seeing them as enemies to whom we are supposed to show love and not turn away.

Now, if they are becoming so verbal as to prevent the sermon from being heard, then that is another story for we are instructed to preach the word and if that person is not allowing that, well then that is a problem. The question then would come down to how much are they disturbing God's word from being heard; I think there would need to be some discerning application of Scripture here to come to a godly decision by the members the session or whatever assembly is meeting for the decision.

 

[Zach]

Thinking out loud here, but your reference to a person being barred from the premises of the church building brings to mind the reality that in most cases the church building is private property. People do not necessarily have a right to come onto our church grounds and into our church building as they please. While there are spiritual questions that need to be worked out (which I think is what your question is getting at) I'm not sure you can argue that a church session doesn't have some measure of authority to make decisions about who is and isn't allowed on the property and in the building.

 

[timfost]

Dr. Duguid,

Yes, I think you are right, there are times where people should be taken from the premises of the church building. Life threatening violence being the most obvious example where either immediate response (by a church security team, say), or by a more belated one (say, calling the police or a restraining order). However, in saying that the session has declared a ban, I mean that they might take upon themselves to ban and not go through the civil authorities.

Of course, the session is part of the courts of the church, but I would argue they do not have the power to be forceful on their own authority, and therefore cannot be forceful by way of banning. Of course, if by good and necessary consequence or example it can be proved the elders have this power, then I will ceed the point, but in applying general principles, I can't say banning as I've defined it is Biblical.

Romans 13 makes clear the authority of the civil government is forceful, and Matthew 16 makes clear (along with John 21 etc.) that the church's authority is spiritual, ministerial, and declarative. The church may defend itself (1 Timothy 5:18), but the church cannot initiate force like the civil government. Even in the case of excommunication, there is no forcing, simply a refusal to serve or commune. That being the case, I would argue that banning - as a form of force - is outside of the authority of the sessional courts jurisdiction. In cases of incredible disruption, the civil authorities should be called, who will apply the needed force. (However, in the case of an overtly unjust civil government, I am not sure what would be done)

Jesus did not seem to bar anyone from hearing the gospel, though he did speak in parables. The Pharisees were often disruptive, often chastened, and Jesus often Physically left them, but he never - though I may be wrong - never forced their leaving. The free offer of the gospel would say everyone should hear, and Matt 18:17 never says we are to treat those who do not listen to the church with civil force: the worst fate is to be considered as a tax collector or sinner, who are encouraged to hear the gospel and come to the church services.

I think in principle I am agreeing with most everyone's points. I have chosen to reply hopefully to you all through Dr. Duguid's gracious response because he answered fulsomely, hopefully capturing much of what everyone else was saying.

Thank you all for your replies, I am greatly blessed by your gracious use of time for me!

Love,
-G

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Could you please define what you mean by "force" or "forcing"? Physical? Verbal? Something in between? Something else? I do think setting out a good definition and parameters would be helpful.

 

[Gwallard]

Could you please define what you mean by "force" or "forcing"? Physical? Verbal? Something in between? Something else? I do think setting out a good definition and parameters would be helpful.

I think the Reformed answer to what "force" means in contradistinction to the church's ministerial authority is the word "coercion." Bannerman says:

To the civil government belongs the power of the sword, as the instrumentality adapted to its purposes. But the Church of Christ, having been established, not to prevent or redress human violence and civil wrong, but rather to promote the grand purposes of God's grace towards a fallen world, is armed with no such coercive power.

It is mainly physical, I'd say. But since coercion is a way of persuasion through force or threats, it can't be divorced from the mental or spiritual, like anything I guess. Coercion is by definition causing someone to do something against their (otherwise fixed) will. Therefore, to say that the church does not use force isn't to say it isn't forceful in it's declarations and in reproof, but that the will of the man must be changed by that man through persuasion with the truth. To coerce, in that way, does not need to include physical violence, but always includes the threat of it. You might think of the coercion that an abusive spouse has - they may never physically abuse, but if their will is tied because of some threat, that is not a good marriage or persuasive, or churchly strategy. The will of the person should be sought, but not forced, through persuasion with the truth. The church is called to be ministerial and declarative.

 

[Edward]

I mean that they might take upon themselves to ban and not go through the civil authorities.

That's the first step in trespassing someone (absent, of course, 'No Trespassing' signs that I've never seen at a church. If they refuse to leave or then come back, then authorities are called. Of course, a large urban church is likely to have police security on premises during services.

Yes, it would seem the church would not possess any legal authority to physically remove someone from their property.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In some states force, although not deadly force, can be used to eject a trespasser. Consult a local lawyer,.

 

[Gwallard]

Thinking out loud here, but your reference to a person being barred from the premises of the church building brings to mind the reality that in most cases the church building is private property. People do not necessarily have a right to come onto our church grounds and into our church building as they please. While there are spiritual questions that need to be worked out (which I think is what your question is getting at) I'm not sure you can argue that a church session doesn't have some measure of authority to make decisions about who is and isn't allowed on the property and in the building

You're right! Often, the premises is private property. Nothing like this is happening in my local church, but we do have private property. The state does give us the power to bar people from that private property as the owners please. Say, if a family attempted to take residence in the church building during the week, that family has no legal basis to be there, and the church has every legal right to reject them. However, the church service of the Lord's day is overseen by God's elders who are only allowed to do those things which are commanded by God, as the Regulative Principle and Colossians 2:16-23 dictate. The rights and commands of the church differ from the rights and commands of the state, and they may contradict. For a very stark example, the state gives every parishioner the right to kill their child, if within a certain time period, but God gives no such right. There are civil rights that the church may not employ. Similarly, the state may give the church the right to ban based on private property laws, but I would argue God gives no such right to elders to ban from hearing the gospel besides in the case of an aggressive assailant (coming from 1 Timothy 5:18). There are obvious difficulties with this - a sex offender coming to the service being one potent one mentioned above. However, there are other ways to deal with this issue other than banning.

So, to agree, I think the session does have some authority to make decisions about those who are allowed on the property. During the week, anyone may not be allowed as they choose. On the Lord's day, only those who are assailants may be banned, because the worship of the church is not earthly, but Spiritual. The Old Testament church had the ability to ban, and - in fact - most were banned from the Temple. But there has been a change to where the Temple veil has been torn - if so, who can we bar?

There are certainly Spiritual questions which must be worked through, but my question deals with the rights of the elders in the church service from Scripture. Those Spiritual questions must follow the Regulative Principle's dictates of what an elder is commanded to do.

Brothers, I am enjoying this greatly!
-G

 

[Zach]

You're right! Often, the premises is private property. Nothing like this is happening in my local church, but we do have private property. The state does give us the power to bar people from that private property as the owners please. Say, if a family attempted to take residence in the church building during the week, that family has no legal basis to be there, and the church has every legal right to reject them. However, the church service of the Lord's day is overseen by God's elders who are only allowed to do those things which are commanded by God, as the Regulative Principle and Colossians 2:16-23 dictate. The rights and commands of the church differ from the rights and commands of the state, and they may contradict. For a very stark example, the state gives every parishioner the right to kill their child, if within a certain time period, but God gives no such right. There are civil rights that the church may not employ. Similarly, the state may give the church the right to ban based on private property laws, but I would argue God gives no such right to elders to ban from hearing the gospel besides in the case of an aggressive assailant (coming from 1 Timothy 5:18). There are obvious difficulties with this - a sex offender coming to the service being one potent one mentioned above. However, there are other ways to deal with this issue other than banning.

So, to agree, I think the session does have some authority to make decisions about those who are allowed on the property. During the week, anyone may not be allowed as they choose. On the Lord's day, only those who are assailants may be banned, because the worship of the church is not earthly, but Spiritual. The Old Testament church had the ability to ban, and - in fact - most were banned from the Temple. But there has been a change to where the Temple veil has been torn - if so, who can we bar?

There are certainly Spiritual questions which must be worked through, but my question deals with the rights of the elders in the church service from Scripture. Those Spiritual questions must follow the Regulative Principle's dictates of what an elder is commanded to do.

Brothers, I am enjoying this greatly!
-G

I think this is a case where you're being overly broad in your application of the Regulative Principle. The Regulative Principle governs the elements and certain circumstances of the actual worship service. It really doesn't speak to whether or not the Elders must allow a certain person onto the church property or into the building.

 

[timfost]

@Gwallard ,

Obviously this discussion is nuanced and I'm very hesitant to give any advice to a specific situation when I don't know all the facts. However, some things that may help the discussion:

1. The RPW regulates worship. Not all church government falls under the auspices of worship. Therefore, applying the RPW to church government can be problematic.

2. Church office includes elders whose primary responsibility is for the spiritual welfare of the congregation. Deacons are primarily responsible for the physical welfare of the congregation. I think you have overemphasized the spiritual nature of the church while not fully recognizing that church officers as a whole are responsible for the church both in body and soul.

3. Church officers are supposed to do all things "decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). There is no strict guidelines for how this should be done, but rather has an end purpose in view. However, the principle at hand is relevant-- if someone is being disruptive but not necessarily an eminent threat to the physical welfare of others, the worship of God may be hindered depending on the circumstance. How can a church do all things decently and in order with such disruption?

4. Under the office of the keys, church leadership has the authority to open and shut, shut and open (Heidelberg 84-85). It is repentance that opens the kingdom to a person, and a lack of repentance that shuts it. Insofar as "banning" is concerned, the matter of lifting the ban is a matter of whether or not there is repentance, not necessarily an irrevocable action. Even banning, I think, could be restorative in nature, assuming that the church leadership communicates the requirements for the lifting of the ban. And since not all sins are the same, nor do they all have the equal consequences, would it be inappropriate for a session to subject someone to banning while another from the elements? Could this not assist in doing everything "decently and in order"?

Just my thoughts as I chew on the conversation.

 

[Gwallard]

I think this is a case where you're being overly broad in your application of the Regulative Principle. The Regulative Principle governs the elements and certain circumstances of the actual worship service. It really doesn't speak to whether or not the Elders must allow a certain person onto the church property or into the building.

I'm not sure, but you might be right. The Regulative Principle of worship should be be attached to Sunday public worship, and therefore the actions that God does with his people. Still, excommunication deals with this, and seems like the proper foil for understanding the difference between this right given by God for the restoration of the people, and banning. Of course, that I am making a distinction shows my opinion - they are different. Both banning and excommunication are public proclamations (either by actually declaring it in words to the congregation, or the congregation hearing it from the banned brother second hand), and therefore are in the court of Christ, while in his presence. Whether or not the RPW is in effect here, that such a judgment as not hearing the Word of God is a serious judgment from the session, which seems even more severe than excommunication. When the session declares something, the Lord declares it (Matthew 18:20, 1 Corinthians 5:4). Therefore, although I can see where you are coming from with the RPW not applying, essential to the RPW is that God's officers cannot act differently than Christ himself dictates (Colossians 2:16-23) .

I argue that banning is more serious than excommunication from this: although excommunicated people are to be considered as tax collectors and sinners, and we ought not eat with such a one as familiar people, they may still be present on Lord's Day worship. Jonathan Edwards says as much,

If we ought not to join with excommunicated persons in familiar society, much less ought we to hold fellowship with them in solemn worship, though they may be present. - https://www.apuritansmind.com/purit...ermons/the-nature-and-end-of-excommunication/

To excommunicate a member is to declare a member no longer part of the visible body of Christ. This is loosing that person from heaven through membership - they are cast into the visible body of Satan to drive them to Christ. This is for their restoration, and every Christian ought not to treat them as a Christian, but with the love that they would have for a great sinner. Banning is different. Those banned may still be considered Christian, but they are cast out of Sunday Worship. This may or may not be for restoration, but if this is not a power that Christians have from Christ, then to ban is still wrong - it is not a thing indifferent.

The examples of banning that I can find in New Testament are all thought bad - John 16:2 "They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." This is an example of the sins that the Jews will do against Christians. 3 John 10 "So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church." This is the example of Diotrephes, who takes upon himself his own authority: whether it is excommunication or banning in mind, the principle is the same - those put out must be done in the way, and for the reasons that Christ approves. If we are to used the example of Jesus, no disruption is too great to bar someone from the proclamation of the gospel until self-defense is needed (even Jesus ran!). The other texts 1 Corinthians 5:11, 2 Corinthians 2:6, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, Titus 3:10, Matthew 18:17, Romans 16:17 are all about excommunication as far as I can tell. None of these speak of banning, but have been traditionally been understood as excommunication. There may be a category of banning in these, but I am not exegetically able to get that.

However, @timfrost is right, #3 all things should be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). If there is a disruption that keeps God from being heard, they should be silenced (Titus 1:11), but that does not mean banning. If there are multiple rooms in the church building, then a speaker could be set up for them to be there. This may be the case with a retarded Christian or an alzheimer patient. We do not ban our noisy children, but give them a room for when they are particularly noisy. There are other ways, and for our children we have found them.

Thank you again, all: Iron sharpens iron!
-G
Edit: grammatical mistakes