What is disfellowshipping?

The one thus excommunicated is put outside the entire sphere of Christian fellowship. With such an one we are not to keep any company or to even eat a meal. "With such an one no not to eat" (I Cor. 5:11) . "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (v. 13). We should note that the injunction is not just to put the evil one out of the Assembly, but "from among yourselves." That means outside of the whole circle of Christian fellowship, ecclesiastically and socially. Such an one is to be left alone and made to feel the seriousness of his sin, so that he may be broken down, brought to repentance, and restored to the Lord.

The man put away according to this word would be put away from all privileges that Christians share in common, that is, assembly privileges. He would be put away from all his former intercourse with those who partake of those, as being unfitted by his state and conduct for such intercourse; he would be “without” and not “within.” Thus would his brethren express towards him their abhorrence of evil, and maintain what was due to the Lord's name.

In short the apostle is showing that brotherly intercourse is restricted to brethren, and so is discipline: to extend either to men of the world is false ground, and would make intercourse with people at large impossible. Christian companionship, on the other hand, demands purity of life on the part of those who enjoy it. If any one called a brother be impure, or covetous, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, one is not to mix with him: "with such an one not even to eat." The meaning is, not that we ought not to take the Lord's supper, but not to eat the least meal with him. The corrupt or violent professor of Christ is to be avoided even in an ordinary social act, not merely on the most solemn occasion of christian worship.

But while the Lord's supper, being the central expression of fellowship in the assembly, is specifically denied to a fornicator, yet this is not all. The saints of God were to have no fellowship with him whatever, not even to eat a common meal with him. There is a necessary distinction here, however. Fornicators of the world, covetous, extortioners, idolators, the believer is not told to avoid, for they are everywhere around. Their evil was not a direct dishonour to God, as was the case with one who was called a brother, and was guilty of a course of sinful practice. This was a denial in practice of the Lord he claimed to serve. Love for him would dictate this serious disciplinary treatment, as well as faithfulness to God, and concern for the purity of the assembly. In fact, added to this is the concern that the world itself would recognize that Christianity refuses to embrace evil, and specially in one who professes to be Christian.

Now there are different ways of dealing with offending Christians. Under certain circumstances their brethren are to withdraw from them. Or the assembly may have to take the matter up and rebuke them. Or it may be called upon to resort to the severest measure, and put out the wicked person. Hence at the outset we can see, that excommunication is not the only means of discipline sanctioned by the Word. In truth, it is the last step that can be resorted to, and indicates that nothing else can be done with the offender.

At Thessalonica an evil habit had already manifested itself of what the apostle called walking disorderly — brethren working not at all, yet seeking temporal support from others in the assembly. Against such a habit the apostle writes very strongly, charging the saints to discountenance it, charging those guilty of it to discontinue it: "We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us." (2 Thess. 3:6.) Such were his words to the saints. "Now them that are such [i.e. disorderly] we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread." (v. 12.) Such were his words to the offenders. Both parties were to see that the question was a serious one; and as they owned Jesus as Lord, they were to obey the injunction given by His apostle. Eating the bread of others in idleness was no part of Christian teaching; nay, the contrary was enjoined. Exhortations to be liberal and brotherly to those really in need abound in the Word (Gal. 6:6; Eph. 4:28; 1 John 3:17; 3 John 8); but eating the bread of others in idleness the Word distinctly forbids. To eat their own bread was to be the aim and desire of such as had been doing the contrary — learning of the apostle, who could labour night and day at his trade, that he should not burden the saints. From all offenders after this sort Christians were to withdraw; and should there be one who did not obey the apostolic injunction communicated in writing, they were to note him, and not to keep company with him, that he might be ashamed. (v. 14.)

Thirdly, there is assembly discipline, or at least discipline of a collective nature. This may be exerted in varying degrees of severity. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 gives us, perhaps, its mildest form: “Warn them that are unruly”. Stronger action is contemplated in 2 Thessalonians 3:6. If warning did not suffice they were to ‘withdraw’ themselves from such a disorderly brother. He was to be shunned and avoided and made to feel how the saints condemned his disorder. Again, in verse 14 of the same chapter a still severer form of discipline seems to be indicated. Some disorderly brother might aggravate his position by disregarding the Apostle’s word, and with such “no company” was to be kept. Yet, even so, as verse 15 shows, he was to be admonished as a brother, and not put in the outside place of excommunication as an enemy. Romans 16:17 indicates action of a similar character to above. Then there is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, and here we have the extreme limit of assembly discipline. In each of these cases the responsibility to act rests on the ‘brethren’—on the assembly as such—and not on individuals of gift or authority.

(V. 6) In the first epistle (ch. 5:14) there is a serious exhortation to "warn the disorderly." Not to do so would be to ignore a manifest responsibility to show godly care for his soul and for the welfare of the assembly. But this chapter is far more strong in its language: "we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." When men have been warned as to their disorderly course and yet persist in it, then much more serious measures of discipline must be used. This would be more painful to have to put into practice, but it is true kindness - the brother who walked disorderly must be withdrawn from. He was not put out of fellowship, but the saints were to have no personal fellowship with him, to maintain a reserve that would be decidedly felt by the offender. There is no thought in this of mere personal impatience or anger, but rather of desire for the true recovery and blessing of the guilty party. The object of all discipline is to be restoration. Consequently it must be wisely exercised, with care not to exceed in punishment, but nevertheless with the firmness of true love.

But the act of withdrawing from disorderly idlers, serious as it is, should not be confounded with purging out the wicked person in 1 Corinthians 5, which last only is excommunication. They were therefore not to esteem one that shirked work as an enemy, but rather to admonish as a brother. Leaven, on the contrary, has to be peremptorily purged out as unclean. Again, he prays the Lord of peace Himself to give them peace through every thing in every manner, and Himself be with them; for such things are apt to disquiet and lead to errors if not judged. As he adjured them by the Lord to read the First Epistle to all the holy brethren, so here he salutes by his hand as the mark in every epistle, and wishes the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to be with them all.

If the warning is not heeded a further step of discipline is needed. This next step is stated in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 3, verse 6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." One walking disorderly, or "out of rank," as the term implies, and who does not heed the warnings and admonitions given him is now to be withdrawn from.

In II Thessalonians 3:14, 15 the apostle further adds: "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." A believer walking contrary to the Word of God is walking in disorder and is to be marked out and isolated that he may be made to feel his wrong and be ashamed of His course. All social intercourse with such is to be withheld and no expression of fellowship with him is to be granted. The Assembly is not to shake hands with him, even though he is still permitted to the fellowship of the Lord's Table. There is not as yet sufficient grounds to put such an one away from the Assembly as a wicked person. This discipline of withdrawal is corrective in purpose, that the disorderly one might thereby be broken down in his course, restored to the Lord, and retain his place at the Lord's Table. He is not to be counted as an enemy, but is to be admonished as a brother. However, if there is not repentance and a change in walk such a case may end in excommunication.

Another case of Christian (though not church) discipline is that of a brother "walking disorderly," that is, as the apostle explains, "working not at all, but being a busybody" (2 Thess. 3:6-16). The apostle here commands with the solemnity of apostolic authority (as in 1 Cor. 5) in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, "withdraw from such an one." The reason of his solemn language in this case is, because idleness, so sharply rebuked throughout the pages of holy writ, and even by the world, opens the door to the tempter, as testified by David's warning example. But this is after all not a case for putting away or church discipline as in 1 Cor. 5, but of discipline to be enacted by the brethren individually against the idle and mischievous one, by withdrawing from all personal communion with him. The intention of this kind of Christian discipline is, to act by the force of such a united testimony upon the heart and conscience of the one who "walks disorderly," and thus to prevent his expulsion from the assembly. The apostle then continues, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle [not — "put away," but] note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed," that is, that he may see his evil way and forsake it, and thus be spared the final, that is, church discipline, which might become necessary by some of the serious fruits of his idleness. For this reason the apostle concludes with the gracious words, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." His language in this case is very different from that in 1 Cor. 5