Exclusion and delimitation

Denouncing others is an evil attitude. I have seen people rounded up by a community just because they didn’t say, think, or do something “true to the line.” I have seen open discussion of important issues in the community suppressed and sidelined. It doesn’t make sense to me because, in my opinion, no two people think alike and “belief” is not nourished by the contrast “right/wrong”.

Of course, it’s okay to disagree. However, heresy is nourished out of supposed superiority, not infrequently out of the comfort that “the majority of Christians” or “tradition” must be right. It is about right and wrong and about excluding the person with a differing opinion (“I am OK, you are not OK”). Denouncing others is the ultimate refusal to talk. A stark observation: in my experience, people often reject what they themselves have not investigated.

Denunciation is the ultimate refusal to talk. It is the retreat of the community into the familiar and the exclusion of all dissenters. Exclusion is sometimes necessary, namely in the sense of a good delimitation of unhealthy attitudes. However, this is different from excluding other doctrines. These two things exist, from which sometimes it does not go on in a community:

1. Exclusion
   The unhealthy demonization of others based on a doctrine, an understanding.
2. Delimitation
   The healthy delineation of conspicuous behavior, sometimes to protect the community.

Then, lastly, there is another, more personal reason for demarcation. Some are cutting themselves off because the cash flow is in jeopardy. Indeed, anyone who allows a supposedly “heretical view” is in direct danger of being disowned by his community, losing his job or patrons. The saying “whose bread you eat, whose word you speak” probably applies here. This is primarily true in communities built on a supposed “same view of things.” This is not to be shaken. If you can’t fit in there anymore, it’s best to go yourself. And this is indeed happening – church members are leaving the community, pastors are changing professions. Here, perhaps, it is most evident that a new kind of community is needed. Perhaps one finds out: new wine does not fit in old wineskins (cf. Mt 9:17).

Do they all have to think alike?

Of course, not all people must and can think the same way. Unfortunately, the desire to think alike resonates in disputes between religious groups. There are two sides to consider in the conversation:

1. Not everyone has to investigate everything
   In a conversation, both have to want the conversation. If that’s not the case, it’s best for everyone to let the other person stand in their own value. Not everyone believes the same thing at the same time. Not every topic is important to everyone. Rather, it seems important to give each other their own thinking space: are we not all dependent on our God and Father, who is a blessing to all? The basic attitude may be at any time: We share the same vocation, even if we disagree.
2. Not every community allows new things
   A denunciation on the part of a community is also not always based on a dispute. Many a pastor protects the congregation with a demarcation. You don’t want community division, you don’t want unrest. This is a serious decision. If this seems necessary, the understanding of the pastor naturally resonates. He doesn’t have to understand what someone else wants. He decides on his own responsibility before God what is good for the community. But even then, heresy is unnecessary. Here’s the trick: demarcation doesn’t always have to be done by removing certain people. A community can also gain resilience in difficult confrontations when guided toward maturity. The idea that the pastor must always protect everyone because “sheeple can’t think or need to think” strikes me as outdated and derogatory to the congregation. Sometimes, however, I have also experienced a quite healthy and necessary demarcation by the pastor, wherein he fulfilled his function with bravura.

Wrong developments in the first communities

What were the challenges in the New Testament era? There were also critical developments there. Paul, for instance, speaks to Timothy about a wrong development as follows:

“Make a commitment to present yourself approved to God,
as an unashamed worker,
who correctly cuts the word of truth.

But from the unholy, empty chatter stand apart;

because they will progress to further unfaithfulness,
and eat up their word like cold fire,
to which Hymenaeus and Philetus belong,
who have digressed from the truth and claim,
the resurrection has already happened,
and so shatter the faith of some.”
2Tim 2:15-18

Timothy has a responsibility within a church. Paul gives him directions for this challenging task. In the community, not all people think alike, and in addition to sound doctrine – for which Timothy was responsible (2 Timothy 2:15) – there is also “unholy, empty talk” (2 Timothy 2:16). We should not fill these words with certain contents too quickly. Paul mentions two general characteristics, “unholy” and “empty.” We should learn to understand these terms so that we can use them to assess concrete situations. We can keep in mind that Paul does not mention the terms as a reason for condemnation, but he describes a piece of reality. It is not a reason for Timothy to “point to others” but rather a reason to “better align himself.”

There are two attitudes that Timothy should follow:

1. Challenge yourself to prove yourself before God
2. stay away from the unholy, empty talk of others.

These are clear words and instructions. Unambiguously, Paul tells Timothy what he should do: he should take care of his own attitude of faith and resolutely separate himself from unhealthy, unholy and empty talk of others. Both are necessary, because “unholy and empty talk” usually does not disappear by itself, but rather has the danger of spreading and “eating around like a cold fire”.

A cold burn (gr. gangraina, med. Gangrene) is a disease characterized by the death of tissue, usually in the extremities. If left untreated, this often leads to death. As imagery, then, Paul is not naming a trifle here, but something that can lead to a critical situation for a congregation. Therefore, he should first delimit himself. This is important because he himself stands in a responsibility for the community.

But Timothy was not to exclude these people, to heresy them, to exclude them from the church. Timothy was advised to take care of himself first so as not to be infected. The unholy and empty chatter was recognized by Paul, among others, in the opinion of two church members who are mentioned by name. It concerned Hymenaeus and Philetus, who believed that the resurrection was already over and therefore “shattered” the faith of many others. There were false claims here. You can say it is a false teaching.

This was not the first time Paul gave Timothy such a warning. Already in his first letter to Timothy the apostle wrote:

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turn away from unholy, empty babblings and counter-statements of what is falsely called “knowledge,” which some claim as their special subject, but concerning faith they digress.”
1Tim 6:20-21

Even today, I regularly encounter people who want to impart a “special insight” that they claim is their “special subject.” It is never about the core of the gospel, about Christ’s work, about God’s love and grace, but about all kinds of other assumptions about the Bible or about the world. As a “special subject,” these ideas detract directly from the Gospel and contribute nothing to a healthy faith. In doing so, we can think of these things that Paul wrote to Timothy once before:

“As I promised you when you left for Macedonia, persevere in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach anything else, nor to pay attention to sagas and endless genealogies, which cause many more disputes than promote the administration of God, which consists in faith.
But the perfection of instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith, from which some have digressed and turned aside to vain babblings, who desire to be teachers of the law, but have not understood either what they say or what they insist upon.”
1Tim 1:4-7

I recognize other such assumptions in teachings about a hollow, flat, or however viewed earth, which we walk on as if it were about a “biblical worldview,” or in teachings of the Anglo-Israel movement, whereby people view themselves as “the lost tribes of Israel.” These things lead nowhere and distract from the gospel. This must be stated clearly.

What is delineated, what is not?

Paul dealt with these problems in a differentiated way. Let’s think again about Hymenaeus and Philetus, who thought that the resurrection “had already happened”.

The reference to this story is written by Paul in his personal letter to Timothy, as listed above. The resurrection is the core of the gospel for today (1Cor 15:1-4). Accordingly, they did not proclaim a false theme. What was criticized was their statement that this resurrection was already over. This apparently made quite a few people in the community think that they had missed the future. Their faith was shaken. Accordingly, it was not the topic that was wrong, but the chronological assignment. The consequences were catastrophic for some.

So you can talk about topics in the Bible, but misclassify them, causing harm. This wants to be considered in all teaching efforts. Teachers have a great responsibility for the welfare of believers. What stands out in this mention of Hymenaeus and Philetus, however, is Paul’s attitude. Paul is not telling Timothy to throw these people out of the church now. If people think differently, that is no reason to exclude them from the community. This cannot be said clearly enough.

If people think differently, that is no reason to exclude them from the community.

One question remains unanswered now: Is there a reason to exclude people from the community? Yes, there is such a reason. This, too, is recorded in the New Testament.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, to this chaotic church in Greece, Paul addresses very directly an unhealthy situation:

“Generally, one hears about fornication among you,
such fornication as is not even named among the nations,
that one of them has taken his father’s wife.
And there you are still puffed up and do not mourn rather,
so that he may be removed from your midst because of this conduct.
For I, though absent in body, am present in spirit,
have already judged the one who does this as if I were present,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
(when you are gathered together and my spirit together with the power of our Lord Jesus)
To hand such over to Satan for the ruin of the flesh,
That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
1Cor 5,1-5

One case of incest Paul describes as fornication, which must not go unnoticed. Here he says plainly that such a person must be “taken from among you.” Here we can see that it is not doctrine or teaching that is a reason for exclusion, but lifestyle. Exclusion takes place in the New Testament because of the way of life. It seems to be the only reason.

Exclusion takes place in the New Testament because of the way of life.

In the history of Christianity, it was the other way around. One was not heretical because of the way of life, but because of a different opinion than the official one. Equalization in viewpoint was the criterion and often still is today. The lifestyle, however, rarely led to exclusion. This may give pause for thought.

Paul is radical in his judgment. He is not afraid to “deliver such to Satan for the ruin of the flesh.” However, this is not a condemnation of this person. His goal is twofold: the community should set itself apart, and that person’s exclusion and attitude should be for salvation. Paul intends a positive effect. That wants to be recorded. The positive effect is on the one hand for the municipality, which should be relieved from such behavior. The behavior harms the community. On the other hand, the positive effect should be for the excluded, who is thereby – perhaps – moved to repentance.

That this repentance also took place, we can see from the second letter to the Corinthians. There the apostle writes:

“But if someone has caused affliction,
he did not only grieve me,
but in part (so that I do not complain) all of you.
For such a one, this reprimand given to him by the majority of you is enough,
So that, on the contrary, you can now rather show him mercy and award him,
so that such a one would not be swallowed up by excessive sorrow.
Therefore, I speak to you to show love toward him.”
2Cor 2,5-8

With these words, the man from the first letter is accepted back into the community. A little later, Paul writes of a learning process for the community itself:

“For even though I grieved you in the previous letter,
so I do not regret it, even if I regretted it.
Because I see,
that that letter has saddened you, even if only for an hour.

Now I am happy,
not because you have been afflicted,
but that you were saddened to change your mind.
For you have been afflicted according to the will of God,
so that nothing has been forfeited to you by us in any way.

For the affliction according to the will of God causes a change of mind to an incalculable salvation,
but the sorrow of the world causes death.

For behold, this very thing, your godly affliction,
how much diligence it has brought about in you,
even defense, even indignation, even fear, even desire, even zeal, even revenge!
In everything, you have proven yourselves to be louder in this matter.
Therefore, when I wrote to you, it was not because of the wrongdoing,
yes, not even because of the injured party,
but for this reason, that your diligence for us may be made manifest with you in the sight of God.”
2Cor 7:8-12

If you rephrase it, Paul is not about black and white, not about right or wrong, but about growth. True, he recognizes and names wrong things, but not to “condemn them forever.” Growth and recovery are the goal, both for the individual and for the community. This orientation needs to be developed.

Church discipline to bring transformation

Religious communities should not be fortresses of orthodoxy and religious arrogance, but biotopes for spiritual growth, incubators for living development. It requires a strong tolerance for error in a climate of trust, with a view to moving forward in a healthy way. Human maturity knows many ups and downs in the learning process. Spiritual maturity also does not develop overnight. Both want to be given space, with simultaneous targeting.

Demarcation in the case of “unholy and empty chatter” may be necessary. Exclusion in the case of problematic lifestyles may be unavoidable. It is the conscious focus on recovery so that positive transformation is promoted. In this transformation, condemnatory “black and white thinking” no longer has a place.

Transformation requires good communication. How to communicate better? Wanting the good does not automatically mean that you communicate this well yourself. At the end of this post, I include two more links to introductions about transactional analysis. This method, founded by Eric Berne, has proven its worth worldwide over many decades for gaining insight into communication structures and improving them. There, you can expand your own toolbox with effective tools that enable a healthier community culture.

Living from the goal

Martin Buber describes this world and being human from the perspective of a Dialogic Principle. He recognizes in it two kinds of relationship (in “I and Thou”). Each relationship type consists of a pair of words. The first pair of words is “I-It”. The second pair of words is “I-Thou”. The I-It relationship is the delimiting, separating and describing nature of this world. The relationship I-Thou is the immediate encounter that knows no separation. It is the encounter that needs no description, but takes place. The I-Thou type of relationship is the true invigorating and discerning encounter. Hopefully, we experience them several times in our lives. It is not permanent, and soon we fall back into the I-I relationship that shapes our world.

As soon as we say “man” or “woman,” “friend” or “colleague” or “right teaching” or anything else, we are describing. This is a descriptive, delimiting I-it relationship. The immediate I-Thou relationship knows no demarcation.

Once I apply this idea to God’s purpose, which Paul writes about, that God will one day be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), I can only think of it as an I-Thou relationship. In it, it is no longer a matter of correct doctrine, of right or wrong. These things will then be a thing of the past. Everything is clarified by judgment and justice on the one hand, and transfigured by God’s grace on the other. Both together are the precondition for us to be able to meet directly and have peace with God and for Him to be “all” in us and in all.

Black and white thinking is “out”. God’s goal lies elsewhere.

As long as we categorize, exclude, heresy others, as long as we have to delimit ourselves occasionally, we merely confirm the current world. If we get stuck there, we may miss our calling. Black and white thinking is “out”. God’s goal lies elsewhere. With His goal in mind, can we see where the path is going? From God’s purpose, how do we shape our relationships and conversations? What is the function of church discipline? What quality and transformation can we promote there?