Relating to Family Members Under Church Discipline
June 18, 2026
June 18, 2026
Abstract: Brad Sayers argues that Christians should continue to carry out their family duties toward family members who have been excommunicated. After identifying the biblical aims of church discipline from passages such as Matthew 18:15–20 and 1 Corinthians 5, Sayers explains the relationship between the God-given institutions of family and church. He cites support for his position from the Reformed tradition and then closes by offering practical guidance for Christians seeking to navigate these difficult situations.
How should Christians treat family members who have been excommunicated from their local church? The Bible clearly instructs believers to avoid close fellowship with those under church discipline (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:9–11; Titus 3:10; Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10). However, God has also commanded us to carry out certain responsibilities in our family relationships (Eph. 5:25–33; 6:2), even in relationships with unbelieving family members (1 Pet. 3:1–2; 1 Cor. 7:12–16). These situations can create a tension: How can Christians affirm the church’s decision regarding excommunication while still fulfilling their duties as spouses, parents, or children?
In short, Christians must continue to fulfill their God-given family responsibilities while also honoring (as best as possible) the divinely intended consequences of church discipline. To demonstrate this point, I will briefly summarize the aims of church discipline, examine the nature of the family in comparison to the church, and then provide examples of how this issue has been addressed historically by Reformed churches. I will close by suggesting some practical ways for Christians to fulfill both their family obligations and their responsibilities as church members toward those who are under church discipline.
Jesus outlined the process of church discipline in Matthew 18:15–17, and Paul gives similar instructions in 1 Corinthians 5 regarding the church’s responsibility toward an unrepentant member. The church is also called to deal with false teachers in a similar manner (Titus 3:10; Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10).11 .For a brief and helpful treatment of the practice, see “A Step-by-step Primer for Church Discipline,” by Geoff Chang. https://www.9marks.org/article/a-step-by-step-primer-for-church-discipline/. For a more thorough treatment, see Jonathan Leeman, Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus (Crossway, 2012). From these passages, we can deduce five aims of church discipline:
1. Declaration: The church declares that the unrepentant sinner is behaving like an unbeliever (Matt. 18:17).
2. Purification: Discipline protects the church from being corrupted by sin, which, as a consequence, protects every member from confusion regarding what behaviors God disapproves of (1 Cor. 5:6–7, 13).
3. Alienation: The sinner is excluded from the fellowship and safety of the church community (1 Cor. 5:11).
4. Rejection: False teachers must be rejected and avoided so that they do not spread error (Titus 3:10; Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10).
5. Motivation: The sinner’s exclusion from the church is intended to lead him to repentance (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20).
The family members of those under church discipline are called to respect these aims, even as they continue to fulfill their obligations at home.
To understand why Christians should fulfill family responsibilities toward those who are excommunicated, we need to recognize that the family and the church are separate institutions, each established by God with its own respective purposes and attending duties. The church is a special grace institution comprised only of those whom God has redeemed through faith in Christ. The family, on the other hand, is a common grace institution established before the fall (Gen. 2:18–24), and it is designed to be a source of stability and love for all people. And because the institution of family is rooted in creation and common grace, its duties are not dependent on someone’s spiritual standing before God. Family duties are therefore binding even when a family member has been excommunicated from the church.
Paul uses similar reasoning when addressing marriages between believers and unbelievers. A Christian husband, for example, is not freed from his marital duties if his wife is an unbeliever. Instead, he is to remain married, for his marital duties serve as a sanctifying influence (1 Cor. 7:12–16). By extension, when a spouse is excommunicated, the marriage covenant remains intact. The believing spouse must fulfill his marital responsibilities, even as he acknowledges that the other is living as an unbeliever. Neglecting family responsibilities under the guise of church discipline would undermine God’s common grace design for the family (see also 1 Tim. 5:8). In turn, the church’s disciplinary action does not dissolve relationships or responsibilities within the family.
Recognizing the continuing obligation of family duties in cases of excommunication has been the predominant view in church history, particularly in the Reformed tradition.22 .Some Mennonite traditions from the sixteenth century differed from the predominant Reformed position. For instance, Menno Simons, the founder of the Mennonites, taught his followers that even spouses and children should avoid those who had been excommunicated (this was called “the ban,” or shunning). Even within Mennonite traditions, however, there were more moderate views (like the Waterlander Mennonites) that encouraged marital and family relationships to continue in a normal manner. For a survey of the early representations of this tradition, see Joe L. Coker, “‘Cast Out From Among the Saints’: Church Discipline Among Anabaptists and English Separatists in Holland, 1590-1620,” Reformation 11, 1 (2006). Arguing from the limited grounds for divorce given by Jesus in Matthew 19:9, English separatist John Smyth states simply, “excommunication does not dissolve the [marriage] union.”33 .Ibid., 20. Smyth’s words come from his “Defense of de Ries’s Confession,” cited in James Robert Coggins, John Smyth’s Congregation: English Separatism, Mennonite Influence, and the Elect Nation (Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press, 1991), 56. If it does not dissolve the union, then it cannot alter marital responsibilities. English Puritan William Ames agrees that avoiding the excommunicated “refers not to moral and other necessary duties.”44 .William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, Reprint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 201. Family duties commanded by God would certainly qualify as moral and necessary. John Owen also clarifies, “No duties arising from or belonging unto any of these [family] relations are released, or the obligation unto them weakened, by excommunication. Husbands may not hereon forsake their wives . . . nor wives their husbands.”55 .John Owen, The Church & The Bible, The Works of John Owen 16 (Edinburgh, Scotland, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 180. Likewise, John Gill asserts that “excommunication does not . . . break in upon the natural and civil relations between a man and wife, parents.”66 .John Gill, A Body of Practical Divinity (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), 313.
Jonathan Edwards is also clear on this point. “77 .Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2, 2nd ed (Edinburgh, Scotland, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 120.” Similar examples could be cited from the nineteenth century.88 .Nineteenth-century American Baptist, Eleazer Savage, advocates excluding and shunning those who have been excommunicated, yet he carefully clarifies that Jesus’s command not to eat with such persons does not “signify the avoidance of common family meals, which might be quite as impossible, in point of fact, as inconsistent with certain scriptural relations and duties.” Eleazer Savage, “Manual of Church Discipline (1863),” in Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life, ed. Mark Dever (Washington, D.C.: Center for Church Reform, 2001), 509.
This brief survey represents a historical consensus in Reformed thought: family obligations remain binding even when a relative has been removed from the church.
Using the five aims of church discipline identified above, I will provide some brief guidance for practical application. Granted, these are complicated situations, and I do not intend to establish absolute rules for every case. If you find yourself in such a situation, seek pastoral counsel to help you think through the particulars of your situation.
Declaration — Acknowledge the church’s judgment and communicate clearly to your loved one that they are living as an unbeliever (1 John 2:3–4). You should also take providential opportunities to speak with concern and evangelistic clarity (Jas. 5:19–20). At the same time, though, excommunication shouldn’t be all you talk about. In every conversation, you should season your words with love (Eph. 4:15) and “give grace” (Eph. 4:29). Your love for your family member should always be evident and demonstrable even in these difficult circumstances.
1. Purification — Believing family members must not approve of or participate in the sin of a disciplined relative. Therefore, avoid situations that compromise your witness or go against your conscience (Eph. 5:3–4; 1 Thes. 5:22). For example, you might celebrate the birthday of a homosexual family member, but you should refuse an invitation to attend that individual’s “wedding.” In some cases, parents may need to limit an excommunicated adult child’s presence in the home if it influences or endangers younger siblings.
2. Alienation — In some situations, it may be wise to limit the frequency of certain social activities to reinforce your concern and the seriousness of the sin. Your decision on this matter, and how you carry it out, will likely depend on whether you’re dealing with a spouse or some other relative.
3. Rejection — If the excommunicated person is a false teacher, you should be absolutely clear on why you reject their errors (Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10). Show them from Scripture where their error lies and plead with them to believe the truth.
4. Motivation — Avoid shielding loved ones from the consequences of their sin, which can prevent them from feeling the need to repent. Posting bail if a son gets arrested is probably more acceptable than spending tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to clear him of a crime you know he has committed. We should remember that repentance is the goal, not relief from all earthly consequences (Eccl. 8:11). Like the prodigal son, the person needs to feel the consequences of his sin deeply before he knows to repent (Luke 15:13–17).
Honoring both sets of obligations — family and church — to an excommunicated family member can be done without contradiction, though it requires wisdom and courage. Again, it is highly recommended that you seek pastoral guidance to help you think through your specific situation.