Recusing The Disorderly

[Mr. M]

2 Thessalonians 3:

6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother

who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 

7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 

8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day,

that we might not be a burden to any of you, 

9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.

What would constitute disorderly behavior sufficient to exclude a member? 

Note: this is a command from an apostle and teacher who has been establishing new traditions for a walk of faith without a Law Code. Surely a knowledge of these traditions form the basis for evaluating disorderly conduct and removing someone.

 

[Knotical]

I think the passage eludes to why someone would be excluded, not making a contribution(labor and toil) thus being able to avail themselves of what has been offered(bread).

[Mr. M]

52 minutes ago, Knotical said:

I think the passage eludes to why someone would be excluded, not making a contribution(labor and toil) thus being able to avail themselves of what has been offered(bread).

I agree. In that passage he goes on to say "anyone who doesn't work doesn't eat". That is motivation, but most churches aren't so intimate to have "all things in common", and partake in community dining. In other epistles, there are other activities that get reprimands, but in my heart it is such a delicate thing to consider telling someone to remove themselves.

When I was program manager for a rescue mission, I lived on site for 18 months. We had daily morning devotions. We ate our meals together, sang together, prayed together, and of course performed our reasonable service and labors of love. It is a grim reality that many have never experienced real Christian fellowship, and honestly, a young man can quickly go from homeless and addicted to "blessed and highly favored", not because of a program, but because of fellowship.

But the hard part was when someone became disorderly, refusing to follow basic rules for the house and I would have to put them out. Paul called this "handing them over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit might by saved". Usually 7 days and I would allow them back. Sometimes 30, and they still came back. There is a longing that replaces lost fellowship, and there is many a heartbreak. We are there to pick up the pieces, and hand them over to the Lord.

Here is something to consider. Many a time I observed someone going through withdrawal, including heroin, and in spite of what might be going on in rehabs, they were always clean by the third day.

Edited October 31, 2024 by Mr. M

[missmuffet]

This refers to unwillingness rather than inability.

James 1:27

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

The needy such as the disabled, those with special needs, the elderly, and others who can't

earn a living are deserving of much help.

 

[Knotical]

In many ways when it comes to recusing someone for not contributing it is usually something that is rather informal, and not something, at least at first, would lead to excluding an individual from the group.  It is the duty of the leaders to be involved in recusing others.  This would pretty much be a very elementary stage of what we would call censuring or putting someone under discipline in order to correct them.

[Mr. M]

1 minute ago, missmuffet said:

This refers to unwillingness rather than inability.

Yes. The question under consideration is the point at which the unwilling must be removed. I assure you it is not easy to ask someone to leave until they are willing to do their chores. There is a sifting process, and there must be clear guidelines for the fellowship to insure fairness and consistency in application.

Paul later follows up on one such discipline, advising to bring back the brother lest he despair.

2 Corinthians 2:6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. 

[Mr. M]

3 minutes ago, Knotical said:

In many ways when it comes to recusing someone for not contributing it is usually something that is rather informal, and not something, at least at first, would lead to excluding an individual from the group.  It is the duty of the leaders to be involved in recusing others.  This would pretty much be a very elementary stage of what we would call censuring or putting someone under discipline in order to correct them.

Yes. And I would ask all to consider why the Spirit has put this on my heart. My spiritual instincts tell me that there is a coming social and economic change that will either drive Christians into a tighter knit NT group or drive them apart. The Church would have to become a Book of Acts collection of home groups to survive.

There is always a process of winnowing down in God's Kingdom.

Gideon's Army numbered 300 by the time the Lord was finished.

[missmuffet]

5 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

Yes. The question under consideration is the point at which the unwilling must be removed. I assure you it is not easy to ask someone to leave until they are willing to do their chores. There is a sifting process, and there must be clear guidelines for the fellowship to insure fairness and consistency in application.

Paul later follows up on one such discipline, advising to bring back the brother lest he despair.

2 Corinthians 2:6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. 

There are people out there who are homeless. They choose not to work for many different reasons. That is not my business.

There are also people out there who are employed who are doing a horrible job. They are careless what they are doing. They want the money for an 8 hour job without actually doing the job.

[Mr. M]

1 minute ago, missmuffet said:

That is not my business.

Yes, our care for one another within our fellowship is our business, God's business. That is what is under consideration. Paul's instructions apply to beautifying the Bride of Christ and protecting the Anointing on the group. This is a challenge for all, not just leadership. 

When on occasion a resident had to be disciplined and sent away, some of the other residents would gang up on me and condemn my actions. They accused me of "throwing a sheep to the wolves". I would laugh at them. He is a man, not a sheep, and he made his own decisions, as he did right up until he came and asked to be admitted as a resident.

Discipline is always helpful for those who truly have a heart for God. The people who I put out more often than not came back hungrier than ever for the Lord. This is the lasting effects of fellowship in spirit and truth.

[Knotical]

12 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

Yes. And I would ask all to consider why the Spirit has put this on my heart. My spiritual instincts tell me that there is a coming social and economic change that will either drive Christians into a tighter knit NT group or drive them apart. The Church would have to become a Book of Acts collection of home groups to survive.

There is always a process of winnowing down in God's Kingdom.

Gideon's Army numbered 300 by the time the Lord was finished.

I think we already saw quite a bit of the winnowing since covid.