AboutDean Gade Expertise The First Amendment. Early writings of the USA founding fathers.
Recent Supreme court rulings on church and state. The meaning of "separation of church and state" given by the Amendment and by the Bible. Knowledge of websites which speak to this matter.
Experience I am an ordained minister earned degrees: BA, BTh, MDiv and almost thirty years in parish work.
I have also studied the First Amendment and believe that I have a good understanding of what our founding fathers meant by writing it.
Expert: Dean Gade Date: 6/6/2008 Subject: How is doctrinal defamation Ok??
Question I am just curious as I am studying law and ethics and found that a certain religion promote and enforce under ecclesiastical priviledge, a method that appears to control members from discontinueing membership, even when their reasons are valid due to percieved unacceptable, unethical behavior, and misrepresentation of facts by said religion, that their consience cannot tolerate and would like to leave with the dignity they came with. This church directly attacks the virtue, of the individual as follows, it is so adeptly woven, spun, if you will ,from their interpretation of scripture into a doctrine as follows:
the person by word and/or actions has clearly terminated his status as one of XXXXXXXXX, disassociating himself. Hence, the elders will announce briefly to the congregation that this individual has disassociated himself. Those in the congregation will accept the person's decision and thereafter will view him as a former brother with whom they would not fellowship,( shun or discriminate against) in harmony with what we read at :
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."
THey continue with Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the 'antichrist.
Then they reason this way A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God's congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate. Even if they had been friends, when someone repudiated the congregation, apostatizing, he rejected the basis for closeness to the brothers. John made it clear that he himself would not have in his home someone who 'did not have God' and who was "not of our sort."
Scripturally, a person who repudiated God's congregation became more reprehensible than those in the world. ..... that Christians must "quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother" who resumed ungodly ways. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) Similarly, Peter stated that one who had "escaped from the defilements of the world" but then reverted to his former life was like a sow returning to the mire. ( most persons leaving on their own not kicked out for wrongdoing have not led a a life that violate church offences) (2 Peter 2:20-22) Hence, John was providing harmonious counsel in directing that Christians were not to 'receive into their homes' one who willfully 'went out from among them.'—2 John 10.
John added: "For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."
I know you had to wade through a lot of biblical stuff but my concerns are why must a person be burdend with such salacious labeling, which under any oher circumstance would be libelous, slander and defamation simple because they choose not to be identified as a member of this religion?
Is there any provision whereby and individual could make it clear their reasons for leaving, where the church is ( compelled by law) to post somewhere stating the reasons for their departure and leave it up to others free will to view them as they truthfully are and not as represented from the church?
Answer The purpose of excommunication is not defamation. The purpose of excommunication is to "win back" a brother:
1 Cor 5:11
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
NIV
2 Thess 3:14-15
14 If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother .
NIV
Matt 18:15-17
15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
NIV
If some congregations or fellowships disregard what the scripture says about the procedure (tell of fault privately, bring others, etc) then they probably have missed the point of Jesus about restoring the "brother"....and the group is subject to a suit of defamation in civil court.
However, if the person has continued to break the laws of the fellowship in spite of warnings, and is then excommunicated, they have no basis to call it "defamation". In ANY organization which has rules of membership that a person joins and then breaks those rules, they are subject to the consequence of breaking those rules as long as they are members.
If a person leaves a church on their own because they prefer not to follow the rules, then they have excommunicated themselves and the church then has no biblical purpose in the excommunication process. They are no longer calling themselves "brother". They are to be treated by the congregation as an unbeliever.
John is writing about those who are still calling themselves "teachers" of God but are denying that Jesus Christ is the very Son of God. They have no right to represent themselves as followers of Christ since they deny who He is and trying to draw people away from the truth which Jesus taught. They are to be avoided and to be rejected as teachers of God.
Again, there is no "defamation". These "teachers" are just being defined according to their public and private teachings. If they do not believe and teach the Bible while trying to deceive others that they are teaching it, they have no right IN THE CHURCH to be exempt from exposure.
In dealing with "legal" matters in the church over which Christ alone is head, it is difficult to legally define the universal churches' position. Our primary task is that of preaching the good news of Jesus Christ and living with the Commandment (Law) of Christ which is: "to love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself". If a true sense, the Law is an alien teaching for those who are in Christ Jesus. Living by the power of the Holy Spirit is totally different from living "under the Law".
Rom 8:1-9
8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ*.
NIV
*(he does not belong to the "church" ...which is the body of Christ)
