Note Him, And Have No Company With Him

I have always thought that church discipline had but one sanction: disfellowshipping. In modern congregational parlance, this means removing a name from the list of members, presumably after offering several opportunities for repentance of a serious misdemeanour. Yet in our Thursday morning studies of 2 Thessalonians, I spotted another:

But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 2 Thess 3:13-15, NKJV

The context is about those church members who are idle, who are disorderly and acting as busybodies (v11), which was contrary to both Paul’s teaching (v10) and example (v8). These loafers and meddlers are not, apparently, to be expelled from the church like the sexual deviant of Corinth, but are to be ‘noted’, admonished and, until improvement is seen, their company is to be rejected. This means that we need not expel all people from a fellowship because of their unattractive lifestyles, but neither are we to entertain them, endorse them, gratify them or recommend them. They are a part of the church and are to be recognised as brothers in the Lord but there exists a barrier to fellowship because of their poor living which they hitherto refuse, or neglect, to rectify.

It might be that the early church’s practice of meeting in private homes made it harder to execute formal church disfellowshipping. While Atticus owns the house in which the church meets, for example, it is harder for Pastor Claudius to expel Junia the busybody or Agrippa the wastrel when both are liked, or are related, to Atticus. Until they do something particularly wrong there might be little that Claudius can do. He can, however, refuse to invite them round to his own home, to sit with them at table, or to ask them to pray in a meeting. We, who worship in commonly-owned chapels, are somewhat more free than our early forbears to operate neutrally, but refusing to keep company is still an option available to us. One in a church whose behaviour is unacceptable but not worthy of formal proceedings by the elders or body of members may still be sidelined by the others. Yet let us make sure we behave correctly in this regard. Are we sidelining a brother for godly reasons, or does he just not fit into our cosy clique? Furthermore, are we truly allowing the opportunity to change, and to welcome him back into warm, informal fellowship and friendship?