The Churchly Love of Excommunication

I want to press in a bit more on church discipline—especially excommunication. Most churches today don’t practice formal discipline at all. They’ve all but abandoned it. That’s the dominant failure. But there’s another one growing in certain circles: going too far, too fast.

In these cases, people are disciplined for things that aren’t clearly sinful. It's more a matter of preference. Or they’re excommunicated with almost no process—just boom, gone. One week they’re in good standing, the next they’re out. No warning. No escalation. That kind of handling may feel “biblical” because it’s bold—but it’s not careful, and it’s not faithful. Church discipline isn’t just about making a point. It’s about making disciples.

Now, there are times when swift excommunication is justified—public, scandalous sin; open defiance; flat-out refusal to engage. But the ordinary process should begin with a quiet word—one brother urging another to repent. That’s formative discipline, and it’s often enough.

If not, the circle widens. Maybe two or three come alongside. If that still fails, the elders step in. They reason with them from Scripture. If the sin is serious and persistent, they may suspend the person from the Lord’s Table for a time—not as punishment, but as a warning. It’s a wake-up call, not a final verdict.

But if someone keeps digging in—refusing correction, ghosting the church, and avoiding the elders—that’s what Scripture calls contumacy. It’s a stubborn refusal to submit to rightful authority, especially after being repeatedly summoned to account. At that point, they’re not just sinning—they’re rejecting Christ’s appointed means of correction. That’s rank insubordination. To reject the church’s faithful use of God-given authority is to reject the head of the Church Himself—Jesus Christ.

Let’s clear up a common confusion: excommunication is neither a declaration that someone isn’t a Christian nor the same thing as shunning.

First, excommunication doesn’t mean the church is claiming with certainty that someone is not saved. It’s a sober judgment that their life and doctrine no longer align with the gospel they profess. As a result, they are removed from the Lord’s Table—for the glory of God, the good of the church, and ultimately, for their own restoration.

Second, excommunication is not the same as shunning. In some cases—especially when someone is actively sowing division or the scandal is serious—it may be necessary to bar them from public worship. But often, it’s better for them to keep attending. Sitting under the preaching of the Word may be the very means God uses to convict and restore them.

Now, I’ve never been an advocate of shunning people—but I have been disturbed by how casually some church members carry on when formal action has been taken. A good friend doesn’t turn his back on a brother in sin, but he also doesn’t pretend nothing’s wrong. He urges him to repent and be reconciled to Christ.

When someone is under church discipline, it should affect your relationship with them. To act like everything is fine is to fail them. It’s not love to ignore their spiritual condition—it’s cowardice dressed up as kindness. Don’t be cruel, but don’t be cavalier.

Many excommunications result from proud people unwilling to repent of relatively simple sins. It’s a matter of contumacy—a stubborn refusal to be corrected. They won’t acknowledge obvious sin. They refuse to engage. They flee discipline. They disappear. And after repeated attempts to reach them—calls, messages, invitations to meet—the elders move forward. Not because no process was offered, but because the person rejected it.

Sometimes these folks show up at another church. When that happens, it’s our responsibility as elders to inform that church of the situation. If their leadership is faithful, they’ll either send the person back to finish the process or take it up themselves.

Sadly, many churches ignore this entirely—which undermines the unity and holiness of the broader Church. That said, over the last few years, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how many pastors have called to ask about someone. May their numbers increase.

Not everyone who flees does so quietly. Some go on the offensive. They remove themselves from visibility and accountability, then go house to house trying to control the narrative. They flip the script—casting themselves as the victim and the elders as heavy-handed or authoritarian.

And in our therapeutic age, that story sells. Victimhood equals credibility. Emotional earnestness is treated as factual accuracy. It’s all too easy for people to believe, “If they’re this upset, they must be telling the truth.”

Thankfully, some believers still have the good sense to say things like, “That sounds terrible. You should work that out,” or, “I need to hear both sides of the story. I’ll pray for peace.” May their tribe increase.

When someone brings those kinds of claims to me, I make it clear: I’m going to follow up. I’ve done it a dozen times since planting East River. And more than once, the story changed once I heard the other side. In those cases, I encouraged the individual to go back and seek reconciliation.

That said, there have been a few times when, after hearing both sides, I’ve concluded the elders mishandled the situation. But even then, my counsel remains the same: try to work it out. I urge both the elders and the individual to humble themselves and pursue peace. I tell the elders to pull back the harshness, and the individual to give it another go.

The truth is, some churches are heavy-handed and authoritarian. Some individuals are rebellious and insubordinate. There is a point when a church must be done with such an individual—and when an individual must be done with such a church. But too often, it happens too fast. And sometimes, these kinds of churches and people find each other. When they do, it gets ugly fast.

There is a point where a church must be one with such an individual and an indivual most be done with which such a church. But often it happens too fast.

Excommunication is the work of the elders, the members, and the broader Church. It takes courage—elders willing to do the right thing at the right pace, with an eye toward reconciliation. It takes faithful members who urge their rebellious friends to repent and be restored. And it takes local churches working together—protecting the Christian community from corrupting influences and partnering to reclaim straying believers back into the fold.

It’s hard work. But it is the work of the Church.