What About Potlucks and Church Discipline?

You have described a volatile situation. I’m afraid that many Christians are so uninformed about both the spirit and the practice of church discipline that extremes in either direction are common more often than not.

First, it appears that the woman was never formally disfellowshipped. If she had been approached, kindly reprimanded, and taken through the entire disciplinary procedure, it would seem clear that the “no-not-to-eat” (a specific for the general) implementation would be appropriate.

But it appears that through neglect, the wayward woman was never given “due process”— and that is as important as the final punitive phase. It’s almost like sentencing a person to prison without a trial.

It should be acknowledged, however, that there are circumstantial exceptions to the no-eat principle.

I know of a case in which a widowed brother fell into sin with a woman in the congregation. Eventually, he was disfellowshipped. Now he is old and infirm, unable to care for himself. His family, faithful Christians, had to take him in. Circumstances now force them into a closer relationship than they would have otherwise maintained. To which obligation should they yield?

There are times when spiritual obligations seem to collide, and godly people are forced to make decisions. In such cases, one must always seek to determine the higher responsibility and pursue it in the offender’s best interests.

Second, the brother who hastily got up and left, it seems to me, acted emotionally (though doubtless sincerely), without thinking through the process and not in the best interests of the sinful lady.

What did that accomplish? He would not have been contaminated simply by being in the same room. It was not a fellowship relationship he initiated.

Does he think it would have been appropriate for the entire congregation to have walked out, leaving the woman sitting there with her Baptist husband? Would this likely have brought her to repentance? What impression would it have made on the man? Or on other visitors? On novices in the church?

One must always keep in mind that precious and vulnerable souls are affected for better or worse by our actions.

Some years ago, a church disfellowshipped a brother whose wife remained faithful. Occasionally, he would show up for a service and attend a potluck. The leadership discussed the matter carefully and reached a unanimous decision.

The congregation should have no strictly social fellowship with him (e.g., going fishing, hunting, to a sports event, or out for a pleasure meal). However, when he attends a service and stays for an after-service event, they concluded he should be treated kindly and encouraged to come again. Eventually, he was restored. Likely, he never would have been reclaimed if the church had acted impulsively and harshly.

Sometimes folks get so caught up in technicalities that they forget the value of a person’s soul. This was a common problem among the Pharisees during Jesus’ ministry.

The situation described will not be easy for the church to work through, but wise and cool heads should prevail. It’s a minefield that requires spiritual judgment (Galatians 6:1) to avoid making an unfortunate situation worse.

If you can approach the brother when he is less emotional and show him that other considerations are involved (beyond the mere eating issue), it might be helpful. If he could be made to see that even he would concede that circumstances might warrant relaxing the eating issue due to higher obligations, it might help ameliorate the situation.

Conclusion

Withdrawal of fellowship is the final and most extreme stage of church discipline. It has a threefold function:

1. It is designed to save the soul of the wayward brother or sister (1 Corinthians 5:5).
2. Discipline is for the protection of the church and to assist it in maintaining its purity. A little corrupting “leaven” will soon affect the entire loaf (5:6-7).
3. There is an element of punishment in withdrawal. Apparently, the wayward Corinthian brother was brought to repentance, as Paul says in his following letter, “Sufficient to such a one is this punishment inflicted by the many” (2 Corinthians 2:6).

There is a price tag attached to flagrant rebellion.