2 Thesalonians 3:14-15 An Apparent Contradiction?

Silk said:
I've not heard of the Brethren and actually, I thought the Mennonites were umm..extinct? I've heard of the Amish, of course. (Do you suppose they know about those commercials where they supposedly make electric heaters?). The Amish are known for not using modern technology (which will help them considerably if the world loses it's power grid :)). As you are on computer, I would guess there is some divergence in theology? between these groups?
In your example of a cheating husband - I hope you don't mind my curiousity - wouldn't there have to be 2 cheaters in the community? Or would this be being seduced by someone out in the outside world? Usually, sinners of this sort, go to great lengths to hide it, so now I'm wondering how anyone found out? And wouldn't the cheater know, when confronted, how grave his sin was and stop at once? Maybe I'm thinking too much Amish as it seems to be an insulated community? Probably showing my ignorance again - but I always had the impression that groups like the Amish did not look to converting others and that most were raised in that way.
Does shunning usually work? Is it used often? Truly, I am curious. And mean no disrepect. Surely you know, that "cults" also use "shunning" of sorts? But in a much more brutal way, if I understand correctly (not speaking of the Amish, etc). Forget I asked if you are offended because I mean no offense.
Click to expand...

I was not Amish, I belonged to an evangelical Mennonite congregation. It is only the Old Order Amish that shun electricity. Most Mennonites and Brethren live like everyone else, though some Mennonites may dress very conservatively. Old Order Amish do not try to convert outsiders, but the Beachy Amish Mennonite Church does. The Amish practice shunning more strictly and often than do Mennonites. It would be applied to any serious unrepented of sin, regardless of who the sin was with. I never saw anyone shunned in the time that I belonged to the Mennonites. But it was understood that if you joined you were expected to live by the moral standards of the church, and that your continued membership depended upon that.

Shunning often does work, though not always. Many miss the fellowship of the group and decide that the sin is not worth what it is costing them. Yes, many cults also use the practice to control members. But, as far as the church goes, the Bible instructs us not to fellowship with Christians living in open sin, so I believe it should be done in flagrant instances of unrepented of sin. But other groups besides Anabaptists sometimes follow the same procedure in dealing with this. In the assembly that I am in, I believe sinning members would be dealt with in a similar manner. Certainly, they would at the least be denied the Lord's Table.
 
Thank you All, for your responses - I have learned things :)and it helps my understanding. I can see that "shunning" as an extreme measure, done with love, could be "good" for all. Still not all that sure about it being used, particularly in human hands. I suppose it is no different then when I, at some periods of life, have found some people "toxic" to me, tho I love them, after all I try to do, nothing changes - I have no choice but to put them away from my life. Thankfully, it never lasted forever.
 
Silk said:
Thank you All, for your responses - I have learned things :)and it helps my understanding. I can see that "shunning" as an extreme measure, done with love, could be "good" for all. Still not all that sure about it being used, particularly in human hands. I suppose it is no different then when I, at some periods of life, have found some people "toxic" to me, tho I love them, after all I try to do, nothing changes - I have no choice but to put them away from my life. Thankfully, it never lasted forever.
Click to expand...
I think really that it is kind of like putting toxic people out of your life for a while. That is a very good analogy.
 
Silk said:
Thank you All, for your responses - I have learned things :)and it helps my understanding. I can see that "shunning" as an extreme measure, done with love, could be "good" for all. Still not all that sure about it being used, particularly in human hands. I suppose it is no different then when I, at some periods of life, have found some people "toxic" to me, tho I love them, after all I try to do, nothing changes - I have no choice but to put them away from my life. Thankfully, it never lasted forever.
Click to expand...
Yes Silk, a good point. Human hands can be fumbling hands. I think sunning on an individual level is probably not the best remedy, though it happens. Shunning exercised by the consensus of the Church congregation would be what Paul had in mind I think.
 
calvin said:
Yes Silk, a good point. Human hands can be fumbling hands. I think sunning on an individual level is probably not the best remedy, though it happens. Shunning exercised by the consensus of the Church congregation would be what Paul had in mind I think.
Click to expand...

Alas, I can only relate to it on an individual basis, as I have never been part of a group who "might" do it. At least in shunning out of love. I refuse to be a part of a group who does it for mean, malicious, self-righteous or gossipy purposes.
 
Jack Williamson said:
As I understand Second Thessalonians, the reason Paul directed the church to shun certain members was because this bunch refused to work and earn a living. They had mistakenly thought that the coming of Christ was so near it was no longer necessary for them to work. Hence, Paul's statement, "If they don't work neither should they eat." That behavior was out of step with the expected practice of the Christian, which is the whole idea of 2 Thess. 3:6. In that verse, Paul used the term "keep aloof" which is a nautical term for rolling up a sail to decrease exposure from the wind. People were to keep contact with such people to a minimum. Also, the word for "unruly" is a military term meaning "out of step." These people were out of step of expected Christian behavior. There is a great book on the market that deals with this whole matter entitled "Sin in the Assembly: A Guide of Local Baptist church Discipline" (ISBN: 1-60441-178-3).
Click to expand...
G'day Jack.
Certainly the immediate context suggests an attitude of idleness. I think Paul did have a wider application in mind when he said in ch3 v14 "If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter,...." So what did 'we' say in this letter?
2 Th 2:2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
I'm thinking that 3:14 refers to all that Paul has taught them, not only by word and example, but also by letter likely including 1 Thes and any others that might have been lost to us.
 
calvin said:
G'day Jack.
Certainly the immediate context suggests an attitude of idleness. I think Paul did have a wider application in mind when he said in ch3 v14 "If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter,...." So what did 'we' say in this letter?
2 Th 2:2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
I'm thinking that 3:14 refers to all that Paul has taught them, not only by word and example, but also by letter likely including 1 Thes and any others that might have been lost to us.
Click to expand...

I have heard Jack's version, almost unanimously, as an interpetation of that particular verse. I forget the name of the Pastor (somewhere in mid-west America) who felt he had decoded the date of the Apocalypse and all his parishioners quit their jobs and sold their properties in readiness. The day came and went. He continued to pronounce new dates until the end of his life. He and his parishoners were all big rapture fans as well. This reminds me of those Thessalonians :).
 
There is no doubt that a principle is laid down in 3:14-15. If anyone is living a lifestyle that is contraary to the biblical expected lifestyle, other believers are to keep their distance. I think that was what Calvin was saying and I certainly agree. Ro. 16:17; Eph. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:6 all seem to imply that.
 
Jack Williamson said:
There is no doubt that a principle is laid down in 3:14-15. If anyone is living a lifestyle that is contraary to the biblical expected lifestyle, other believers are to keep their distance. I think that was what Calvin was saying and I certainly agree. Ro. 16:17; Eph. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:6 all seem to imply that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps it's your wording, Jack. Again, we get into man's interpetation, sometimes, of scripture and it may not be God's Will, at all. Christ came for the sinners - tax collectors, the poor. Well - everybody. He didn't keep a distance. And as I have said, on many threads, I think that it can and does get used for judgement against others. To say that I am going to catch the sin of other sinners, by being friendly or whatever - is to say, almost that my own faith isn't very strong. Well, I already know I'm in the minority here about this. I can accept the concept of "shun" done with love for the benefit of all concerned, as an extreme measure. I don't like the idea of imposing my Will on someone because I mistakenly believe it is God's Will. God gave us free will and within reason we should allow it for others.
 
Christ was evangelizing and giving the gospel message to all. The passage in 2 Thess. 3 is speaking to a local church where the people are professed Christians. Paul wrote in both 3:6 and 3:14-15 that if a Christian is not obeying the Word we were to have "no fellowship" with him in order that he might be ashamed. It is an act of local church discipline. Do you agree with my assessment or do you think I'm all wet? (btw you wouldn't be the first.)
 
Jack Williamson said:
Christ was evangelizing and giving the gospel message to all. The passage in 2 Thess. 3 is speaking to a local church where the people are professed Christians. Paul wrote in both 3:6 and 3:14-15 that if a Christian is not obeying the Word we were to have "no fellowship" with him in order that he might be ashamed. It is an act of local church discipline. Do you agree with my assessment or do you think I'm all wet? (btw you wouldn't be the first.)
Click to expand...

As I said in an earlier post, I have always heard that people in Thess. thought Christ was coming any minute and didn't do their fair share of the work or any(?). The KJV includes along with idle, busybodies. It seems to me that this was about discipline in the Church of that time. I don't know what the other translations say about "busybodies" but my impression today would be someone who offers nothing but critiques on their fellow Christians. These people do need to feel shame in these instances IMO. Not sure that shunning would apply to this other than firm rebukes by their fellow parishioners. I felt Calvin was trying to apply this to whichever Church doesn't agree with what he does. In that case, if it's your Church - find one that agrees with you. Perhaps, I was being too thin skinned about how the posts read to me. Apologies, if these weren't your intent.
 
Apology accepted Silk, though not at all necessary. Though written to the Thessalonian Church, I'm sure Paul's advice should apply to all the Churches.
I felt Calvin was trying to apply this to whichever Church doesn't agree with what he does.
Click to expand...
Yes, they're all apostate heretics and should be burned at the stake.......seriously Silk, do I come across like that?:eek: :(
Maybe the word "Shun" has too strong a connotation. The various translations use a phrase "have no company with him" Kjv or " have nothing to do with him" Esv, these might sound less harsh. We should never loose sight of the fact that discipline is never meant to be permanent, and is intended to bring about reconciliation, not estrangement.
 
Actually, when it was explained to me, shunning, as an extreme measure, done with love -erased any contradiction in my mind to "don't treat them as an enemy." Which I think shunning with love takes care of. Altho, my first take on it tended to the knee jerk/cult meaning. So I actually did learn something.
 
When you put your child in "time out" or send them to their room - do you regard them as an enemy? Even in cases of "tough love" where a parent has kicked out a son or daughter who won't get off drugs or won't respect the rules of the house, the parent does not regard them as an enemy, but yearns for the day of reconciliation and restoration.

I think the saying, "hate the sin but love the sinner" is apt. If someone refuses to separate themselves from a sin, then they must be removed along with the sin to which they cling. If they come to their senses and let go of the sin, they can be welcomed back.
 
That being said you should not kick your child out onto the streets, things will only get worse from there, especially if drugs are involved.
 
tjon said:
That being said you should not kick your child out onto the streets, things will only get worse from there, especially if drugs are involved.
Click to expand...
Sometimes things do have to get worse before they can get better.
However the problems of a dysfunctional family can not be reduced to any sort of simple 'fix all' formula.
When a child goes off the rails under the nurturing or otherwise environment provided in the family home, then something needs to change. Suppose, for the sake of argument that there is a family consisting of Dad, Mom, and three children. One child goes to drugs, causing considerable disruption and heartache for the other four family members. Assuming the other two children are more or less well integrated, what does that say about the the wayward one's ability to survive in that family environment?
Is it in everyones best interest that they be dragged down by the one person's bad choices?
As I say, I believe generalizations are bad business....each situation needs to be considered taking into account all the factors.
 
Yes - generalizations are "bad business". It was used as an example, to show that bad behavior results in consequences. Which is true, the world over. And tossing your kid out of the household has to rank right up there as the hardest thing, sometimes, a parent has to face. It is usually done after they lie and steal from you on a daily basis and could cause any other siblings to fall down the same rabbit hole. As a parent, sometimes you have to pray alot :). and let go.
 
tjon said:
That being said you should not kick your child out onto the streets, things will only get worse from there, especially if drugs are involved.
Click to expand...

Along the lines of what Calvin and Silk said, shunning is not the default answer to every problem. Generally, it would be a last resort after other means of addressing the problem have been tried and failed. But, sometimes other approaches do fail. It is no good for a church member or a wayward child to continue to enjoy the comforts of "home" (literally or figuratively) while essentially continually willfully violating the sanctity of that "home."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top