To shun is to deliberately avoid something or someone. In the Bible, the word shun is applied to evil. The Lord said that His servant Job was “blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil” (Job 1:8). Job himself confessed that “the fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding” (Job 28:28). The Bible advises us, “Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil” (Proverbs 3:7–8). “A wise man fears the Lord and shuns evil” (Proverbs 14:16). So, shunning evil is good.
In religious and ecclesiastical contexts, shunning is a form of church discipline against a person who has violated church rules. Shunning involves a formal decision by a church that bans interaction with the person being shunned. The extent and duration of the shunning vary among the various groups that practice it. Shunning is often associated with Amish and Mennonite groups, but it is also employed by other churches. Certain cults and traditional societies (such as in Bali) practice severe forms shunning that can lead to whole families being ostracized from all aspects of society.
In Amish shunning, church members are not allowed to eat at the same table as those who are shunned, do business with them, or receive anything from them. Shunning is only applied to baptized, adult members who willfully violate their vows to the church. Non-members and those who never took the vows are not eligible to be shunned.
Although shunning is related to excommunication, the two practices are not synonymous. To be excommunicated is to lose one’s membership rights in a church; the excommunicated person may no longer vote in the church, teach a class, etc. Shunning goes beyond excommunication: to be shunned is to be denied personal interaction with church members even in social, non-ecclesiastical settings. It is possible to be excommunicated without being shunned. While shunning may connote legalistic tendencies, and shunning can be misused in spiritual manipulation, there is a proper place for breaking an association. The Bible teaches excommunication as a form of church discipline. Further, 1 Corinthians 5:11 refers to what can easily be interpreted as a form of shunning: “I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.” In this context, Paul is dealing with a man involved in gross immorality (verse 1). The command is to excommunicate the man for his own spiritual good (verses 2 and 5) and for the church’s own purity (verse 6). The apostle’s counsel to “not even eat” with the man is based on two things: the man claims to be a Christian, and he is consistently involved in public, unrepentant sin (verse 11). After excommunicating such a person, the church must be careful not to give the impression that everything is all right. As long as an unrepentant sinner claims to be a child of God, he can have no real fellowship with the body of Christ.
Other passages of Scripture also teach excommunication and the breaking of close association (Matthew 18:15–17; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). However, besides the command not to eat with the man in Corinth, no specifics on the practice of shunning are given in the Bible. Even in 1 Corinthians 5:11, the extent of the shunning is not entirely clear: was Paul referring to the Lord’s Supper, which he discusses in 1 Corinthians 11? Was the command a cultural reference to showing acceptance and fullness of fellowship? In any case, it would seem that extreme forms of shunning, such as considering someone “dead,” utterly ignoring him, or refusing to acknowledge his existence, go beyond what Scripture commands. After all, Jesus said that, when someone is put out of the church, he should be treated as “a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). In other words, treat an intractable offender as an unsaved person. How are we to treat the unsaved? With love and grace. The “pagans and tax collectors” need to be evangelized. We are to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44).
The goal of excommunication and any form of shunning is restoration (Galatians 6:1). The purpose of any type of discipline is to prompt repentance and, ultimately, to reunite our fallen brother or sister with the church body. Being officially ostracized from the church, the sinner might be brought to repentance. When the man in the Corinthian church later realized that he had sinned against God, he repented and came back to the church for forgiveness and reinstatement. Fellowship with the Corinthian believers was restored (2 Corinthians 2:6–11).
Now listen carefully: Scripturally, excluding a person from the church is preceded by admonition and counsel; it is only employed in cases of bona fide heresy, obdurate divisiveness, or blatant, unrepentant sin; and it is a last resort. After excommunication, the relationship between the former member and the church naturally changes, and the “shunning command”—not to eat with such a person—may come into play. However, the church still has the responsibility to pray for the one being disciplined and to extend forgiveness when repentance is evident. Shunning, as defined as a refusal to speak to someone or a total severing of all ties, goes beyond what the Bible advocates.
That was great Michael. We refer to excommunication as withdrawing fellowship. Same exact thing just a different term. I suppose we avoid the word excommunication because of it’s association with the Roman Catholic Church.
At any rate, you hit the really important point. This is not to push people away to the fringes, but to ultimately restore them to fellowship. That’s how our Lord deals with us, and therefore is the model on how we should deal with our brethren.
Thanks for this today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Wally. I was hopeful in that people would pick up more so upon the aspect of shunning rather than the aspect of excommunication or withdraw of membership (fellowship). As I had pointed out, ever so briefly, excommunication and shunning are not synonymic.
I do not personally believe in shunning; nor find real biblical support for it. Excommunication or withdrawal of fellowship is yet another issue wholly separate. The history of shunning is more related to the Amish and hard line Mennonite Churches.
Even the act of withdrawing fellowship from a member of a church has it’s criteria before excommunication can be administered. In fact, it is three [3] fold. They are as follows:
[STEP 1] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
[STEP 2] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[STEP 3] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. -Mat 18:15-17 [KJV].
Could Jesus have made it any plainer then that? Three very clear steps in dealing with a sinning church member. Notice too, it is not until the last step in Jesus’ outline that you take the sinful situation to the whole church. And if I understand Jesus correctly, it is only then that the church excommunicates the unrepentant sinner.
Let’s please ask ourselves another question: according to Jesus in Matthew 18, would excommunication have been necessary if the sinning member had repented on step 1? Step 2? How the about step 3?
The answer should be obvious, but just in case it isn’t, according to Jesus’ own words, the sinner should not be excommunicated and treated as an unbeliever until all three steps have been completed and the sinner has still not shown any sign of sorrow or repentance. And, might I remind us all, it never works to do [STEP TWO AND THREE] before [STEP ONE], such as happens in many of the plain churches. Not only does it not work, it is not how God intended it to be.
Thank you once again, Wally, for your kind words and comment. both are always appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you and yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Michael, I also don’t believe in the idea of shunning. I would only add one thought. I have heard it taught, and actually agree, that the taking an issue before the church and then treating the offender like a heathen are actually separate. Once it has been taken before the church, that is on last chance for the whole body to pray, exhort, and beg that person to get right. I thought that made sense when I heard the teaching.
And thank you for always being kind and open here on your blog; you are that way even when another sees things differently than you. Kudos for that. It’s not easy for all of us!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person