Church sends family a ‘letter of excommunication’…

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This pastor is obviously not typical of most mainline or evangelical Protestant pastors.

I seem to recall that there some very fundamentalist Protestants who think that everyone outside of their own 50 to 100-member church is damned for hell, but they are not too common.
They are common enough… many hardcore independent fundamental baptists are like that. it’s just that there are many small churches of these people such that no one group really stands out above the others. The jesus-is-savior.com guy seems to think he and Billy Sunday are the only ones making it to heaven.
 
It could be an attempt to shock the family into realizing their error and return.
Those abandoning their faith could cause scandal to the flock and lead others away.

It’s probable that the pastor would sadly tell the congregation that such a letter had been sent, also to warn others of consequences. People don’t like to be expelled from a group.

The pastor is essentially helpless if people decide to leave, but like some parents when their children leave the Church, chose to exert pressure, with something of his own ‘righteous anger’ seeping into the message.

As has been pointed out, the Catholic Church may deliver excommunication in a more formal manner but it’s no less awful, indeed more so, as the person is excluded from the Sacraments for the period of excommunication.
 
It could be an attempt to shock the family into realizing their error and return.
Those abandoning their faith could cause scandal to the flock and lead others away.
And when you think about it, the fact that the Pastor, Elders or other church leaders are trying to reach out to the members of the congregation who have fallen wayward is kind of refreshing.
 
A wise man said once “there are three sides to every story, your side, my side, and somewhere in between is the truth.”
We don’t know the circumstances behind this “Letter of excommunication”, all we are hearing is the preachers side.
And he doesn’t sound like a very nice human being.:cool:
 
Hi Ahisma: I’m always glad to read your posts and I really enjoy them. But I I’m trying to figure this one out in regards to what the point is. Excommunication is an old tool of subjugation. These folks at this particular church are just a bit more bold faced and less nuanced than those who are more practiced at it, but the implications are the same as any excommunication. Did you have an observation on it? I’m always interested in your observations.

Your friend,
Sufjon
Hi Sufjon, I found it interesting that the pastor would declare someone no longer a “Christian” because the person is no longer a member of that particular denomination. I guess such motions are common enough in certain fundamentalist circles, though.:rolleyes:
 
Hi Sufjon, I found it interesting that the pastor would declare someone no longer a “Christian” because the person is no longer a member of that particular denomination. I guess such motions are common enough in certain fundamentalist circles, though.:rolleyes:
It is almost a cultish mentality that one’s particular little understanding of the Bible is the only possibility and everything else dooms one to Hell. The most glaring example is Westboro Baptist, but Fred Phelps is scarcely the only one that thinks he sits on Christ’s Juedgment Seat, as this pastor does.
 
I thought Protestants were under no obligation to attend church on Sundays?
You thought wrong. It isn’t understood in the same legal framework as in Catholicism–i.e., if a Protestant misses an occasional Sunday it’s not a big deal. But traditional Protestants believe that regular gathering for worship is an essential part of the Christian life, just as Catholics do.

Edwin
 
You thought wrong. It isn’t understood in the same legal framework as in Catholicism–i.e., if a Protestant misses an occasional Sunday it’s not a big deal. But traditional Protestants believe that regular gathering for worship is an essential part of the Christian life, just as Catholics do.

Edwin
And non-traditional protestants?

Back in the day when I grew up, Catholics in my town wouldn’t be caught dead not going to Mass on Sundays, but the Protestants I knew seemed to go very infrequently and did not seem to mind it. They usually went on Easter (but not Christmas). Just my experience, is all.

Maybe I lived around non-trad protestants - but i think the family next door were Presbyterian which I thought was traditional. (There are so many - what is it about 40,000 protestant churches? - so how can one know which one of their gatherings follows which rules anyways?!)

And I know, I can’t determine the Protestant ‘rules’ from observing what must have been some non-compliant Protestants, so I stand corrected!

God bless you.
 
Hi Sufjon, I found it interesting that the pastor would declare someone no longer a “Christian” because the person is no longer a member of that particular denomination. I guess such motions are common enough in certain fundamentalist circles, though.:rolleyes:
Oh, okay. Yes, it is. Thanks!

Your friend
Sufjon
 
And non-traditional protestants?
Well, it depends. I used the qualifier because obviously Protestants are a varied bunch. Some really do think that corporate worship is kind of optional. But it’s not the mainstream view by any means.
Back in the day when I grew up, Catholics in my town wouldn’t be caught dead not going to Mass on Sundays, but the Protestants I knew seemed to go very infrequently and did not seem to mind it. They usually went on Easter (but not Christmas). Just my experience, is all.
Maybe I lived around non-trad protestants - but i think the family next door were Presbyterian which I thought was traditional. (There are so many - what is it about 40,000 protestant churches? - so how can one know which one of their gatherings follows which rules anyways?!)
And I know, I can’t determine the Protestant ‘rules’ from observing what must have been some non-compliant Protestants, so I stand corrected!
God bless you.
Let me remind you that there are in fact a number of Catholics who don’t go to Mass very frequently either! The difference is that in the Catholic Church one can point to a specific rule and say that they are violating it, whereas in mainline Protestantism (which is probably what your Presbyterian neighbors were–“mainline” refers to the old denominations, as opposed to conservative split-offs, non-denominational Protestants, small “free church” denominations, etc.) there really aren’t any sanctions. However, that doesn’t mean that in principle these Protestants don’t think it’s important. And when you get a very conservative version of, say, the Reformed tradition (which is what Presbyterians are, and also, in a much more fundamentalist version, what the church under discussion is), you can get some very strict enforcement of the general principle that everyone acknowledges.

Yes, Protestants are very diverse. The 30,000 figure or whatever it is should not be used by Catholics, because the person who came up with it counted a different denomination in every country automatically, giving him something like 280 denominations within Catholicism (counting the Catholic Church in each country as a separate denomination). However, there certainly are hundreds of variants of Protestantism, and that’s still a lot to keep track of.

J. Gordon Melton’s Encyclopedia of Religion in America makes it a bit easier by grouping denominations into “families.” His classification isn’t perfect, but it’s not a bad place to start. Other than Catholics and Orthodox, the Christian “families” would be (I’m not counting Mormons and Unitarians here):

Anglicans (a mixed bag, including folks who are largely Catholic in their theology, folks who are Reformed, and many in between, besides the ones who have rejected traditional Christianity entirely, which you get in most of the “mainline” denominations)
Lutherans
Reformed
Pietists/Methodists (arguably these should be separate, and “Pietists” should include a lot of non-denominational evangelicals and many people who belong to denominations that officially pertain to a different “family”)
Holiness (arguably a subset of the Methodist tradition)
Pentecostals (originally an offshoot of Holiness)
“European Free Church” (mostly Anabaptists, but he counts Quakers as well)
Baptists (he includes “Restorationists”)
Fundamentalists
Adventists (including both SDAs and JWs, as well as smaller groups)

Each of these has diversity within it–Pentecostals and Adventists, for instance, have Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian expressions, which is a pretty big difference! And the more traditional groups (Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, also Baptists) have very big conservative/liberal variation (less so among Methodists for various reasons, one of which is that the conservative versions of Methodism are classified by Melton in the separate “Holiness” camp for the most part).

Anyway, back to the original point: the pastor’s actions are certainly unusual, but the principle that Christians should worship together is recognized by nearly all Protestants. What you observed was nominal Protestantism, not essentially different from nominal Catholicism except that “mainline” Protestants don’t do much to discipline their “nominal” members. Conservative Protestants, however, who don’t want to fall into these lax patterns, are typically much stricter in their church discipline than Catholics, especially because they actually administer discipline personally, as here.

Edwin
 
Are some of you saying that practicing Protestants do not believe in the “Bible” which includes the Ten Commandments ?

The Third Commandment of God is - " Thou shall keep Holy the Lord’s Day. "
Ex: 20: 8-10.
And Jesus’s statement in Mt: 5:17-20.

The 10 Commandments are not suggestions. They are Commands from God to be kept by all Christians and Jews.

Without the Bible, Protestants have nothing upon which to base anything else, especially since they do not have “Apostolic Succession”.
 
Are some of you saying that practicing Protestants do not believe in the “Bible” which includes the Ten Commandments ?

The Third Commandment of God is - " Thou shall keep Holy the Lord’s Day. "
Ex: 20: 8-10.
And Jesus’s statement in Mt: 5:17-20.

The 10 Commandments are not suggestions. They are Commands from God to be kept by all Christians and Jews.

Without the Bible, Protestants have nothing upon which to base anything else, especially since they do not have “Apostolic Succession”.
Actually the commandment is “keep the Sabbath holy.”

The Puritan tradition holds that Sunday is the Sabbath. The Catholic tradition holds that the Church had the authority to replace the Sabbath with the Lord’s Day. Calvin held that the Commandment is still valid in a general sense but that the precise day is not so important (that’s the position I would hold, combined with a respect for the tradition of the Church). Some other Protestants would say that the commandment simply isn’t binding on Christians.

I hope you’re not suggesting that Protestants are somehow committed to a literalistic reading of the OT, because such a position is completely untenable, and I’d suspect you of attributing a “straw man” position to Protestants in order to discredit them.

Edwin
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
This is a beatiful example that denies Sola Scriptura. The letter comes from a Pastor stating that he is performing a Sad duty. This means that emotions were involved and perhaps emotion in formulating this letter. The Pastor goes on to say that he “Attempted to call and personally” contact the person. In other words there were words spoken prior to writing the letter. We do not know what those words were. The letter is brief and does not outline that communication.

If the Pastor met with the person today and they had a conversation, they would discuss the phone conversation, the personal meeting and the content of the letter forming an oral tradition of communication that included the letter but not exclusive to the letter.

The other point is that the Pastor is a fallible Protestant. He could be wrong. The parishoner is fallible and could be wrong. The parishoner can choose to find another ecclesial community and join the “saved” just not with this one. Perhaps Reformed today, Pentacostal tommorrow. This means that there is hope.

This was a great example that denies Sola Scriptura, establishes oral tradition, the fallible nature of Protestant thought and the possibility of hope…for we were saved in hope…👍
 
This is a beatiful example that denies Sola Scriptura.
It is important to describe Protestant doctrines in terms that they would recognize, and not according to your own straw-man construction. You need to start from what this community understands “Sola Scriptura” to be and show that they are violating that. You pretty clearly haven’t done that.

Edwin
 
It is important to describe Protestant doctrines in terms that they would recognize, and not according to your own straw-man construction. You need to start from what this community understands “Sola Scriptura” to be and show that they are violating that. You pretty clearly haven’t done that.

Edwin
I have described what I understand from my perspective. You believe or have offered that I must describe something from someone elses perspective. Do you always do this?

You say " I need to start"…do you have a desire to direct my mind? How is it you know what I need to do? Help me understand how it is you understand your desire to direct others as to how they should approach a topic? I do noit recall seeing anywhere my asking you what it was I needed to do. You may want to rethink this.

There is nothing wrong with offering suggestions from your perspective and as you read you will see that I have not in any way directed your mind to do anything. I have no idea how your mind works. I have no idea what you think. I can disagree with you. I can agree with you. I can add or change what you say. I cannot tell you what you need to do.

Your conclusion is based on your propositions and assumptions and to say I have not clearly done something emanates from the mindset you have and I agree, if I was led to be directed by your mind then I would have failed. I do not direct your mind and you do not direct my mind and as was said in “A few Good Men”…is it clear?..“crystal”…:is there any other kind? 👍

Shall we agree to disagree and start over. Let me know what it is you think concerning how you see what it is I write without trying to direct how you think I should do it. Try something simple.

I agree or I disagree. What you say is…What I think is…I believe…I think…I understand what you say…this may be novel for you or perhaps not…I do not know. I will wait.👍
 
I have described what I understand from my perspective. You believe or have offered that I must describe something from someone elses perspective. Do you always do this?
Generally yes. It is part of my vocation to try to look at things from other people’s perspectives and to help other people do so.
You say " I need to start"…do you have a desire to direct my mind. How is it you know what I need to do? Help me understand how it is you understand your desire to direct others as to how they should approach a topic?
I am a church historian. It is my vocation to try to understand Christians who think about the faith differently than I do. I observe a great deal of miscommunication among Christians (and humans generally) because they don’t take the trouble to understand why those with whom they differ think as they do.

Obviously I can’t direct your mind. But I can challenge your mind. You have the free will to accept the challenge and think about whether I am right, or avoid the issue of truth by accusing me of being rude or patronizing or something of that sort.

Edwin
 
Generally yes. It is part of my vocation to try to look at things from other people’s perspectives and to help other people do so.

I am a church historian. It is my vocation to try to understand Christians who think about the faith differently than I do. I observe a great deal of miscommunication among Christians (and humans generally) because they don’t take the trouble to understand why those with whom they differ think as they do.

Obviously I can’t direct your mind. But I can challenge your mind. You have the free will to accept the challenge and think about whether I am right, or avoid the issue of truth by accusing me of being rude or patronizing or something of that sort.

Edwin
I too am a student of history and communication. You may want to look at NLP or perhaps you have. If you have then you will see this as repetitive if not you may find it interesting or not.

Our minds filter information with Deletions, Distortions and Generalizations. You will find this routinely in all communication. I usually look for those as I see writing and ask questions.

Chunking down to the point is part of NLP and is done by asking How and What questions, not Why questions. It is important from the NLP perspective to ask questions before you formulate an opinion on what it is you believe the thought process of the individual is because you lack information.

I see you have knowledge, interest, concern and a self designated vocation. I also see 12,000 postings. The only way to know another’s perspective is to ask them questions about that perspective. If you make an assumption you will be wrong. I suggest looking into NLP and how to ask Meta questions so as to chunk down to what you want to know to be able to formulate an idea as to what that mindset is. It will aid your vocation and make you most effective.

If you are interested read Science and Sanity by Korzybski, General Semantic, or a shorter concise version Manhood of Humanity. Look at User’s manual of the Brain volume I & II by Hall and Bodenheimer…they have been invaluable to me in discerning patterns of thought and would aid you in your vocation if you choose to.

I admire your interest, your knoweldge, understanding and desire to know. Thank you…👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top