Should We Withdraw Fellowship Individually From Unfaithful Christians If the Church Fails to Do So? 如果教會沒有執行，個別基督徒是否應與不忠心的信徒停止團契？

Author: Don Blackwell

Chinese Translation by Joyce Yang 

本文中文翻譯由 Joyce 提供，僅供個人研究、學習與分享使用。
The Chinese translation below is provided by Joyce for personal study, research, and sharing purposes only.

 

 

INTRODUCTION 引言

Withdrawal of fellowship is not always practiced, but it is certainly commanded by God as a final effort to regain an unfaithful child of God. Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, “that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

雖然「停止團契交通（withdrawal of fellowship）」並不總是被實踐，但它確實是神所吩咐的，作為挽回失信兒女的最後努力。保羅寫信給帖撒羅尼迦教會說：

「你們要遠離一切不按規矩而行、不遵守從我們所領受傳統的弟兄。」（帖後 3:6）

But what if the local congregation fails in its responsibility to practice church discipline? Should individual Christians take it upon themselves to withdraw from those they view as unfaithful? No. In the Bible, withdrawal of fellowship is a congregational action. Notice Matthew 18: “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17).

然而，如果地方教會沒有履行教會紀律的責任呢？個別基督徒是否應自行決定與他們認為不忠心的人斷絕交通？

答案是否定的。

在聖經中，停止團契交通是一項由教會共同執行的行動。請注意馬太福音 18 章：

「若是不聽他們，就告訴教會；若是不聽教會，就看他像外邦人和稅吏一樣。」（太 18:17）

---

MATTHEW 18 AND CONGREGATIONAL ACTION 馬太福音十八章與教會集體行動

Mt. 18:19-20 is often quoted out of context.

馬太福音 18:19-20 常被斷章取義地引用。

“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

「我又告訴你們，若是你們中間有兩個人在地上同心合意地求什麼事，我在天上的父必為他們成全。因為無論在哪裡，有兩三個人奉我的名聚會，那裡就有我在他們中間。」（太 18:19-20）

This statement is used to suggest that the Lord is in the midst of two or three Christians worshipping together.

這段經文常被用來說明，只要有兩三位基督徒一起敬拜，主就在其中。

What if a man is on military deployment and worships alone? Is the Lord not there with him?

那麼，如果一名軍人被派駐外地，只能獨自敬拜，難道主就不與他同在嗎？

The passage in context immediately follows the church’s withdrawal of fellowship. It teaches that when the group takes action, it is bound in heaven. This is a decision that calls for some level of judgment, and God ratifies it.

其實，這段經文的上下文緊接著教會執行紀律的內容。它教導我們：當教會群體採取行動時，這個決定在天上也被確認。這是一項需要判斷的決定，而神認可這樣的決定。

Wayne Jackson also discusses this interpretation of Matthew 18:20 in an article available at ChristianCourier.com.

Wayne Jackson 也曾在 ChristianCourier.com 的文章中討論過對馬太福音 18:20 的這種解釋。

---

THE CHURCH GATHERED TOGETHER 教會聚集在一起的時候

I Cor. 5:4-5, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

哥林多前書 5:4-5：

「就是你們聚會的時候，我的心也同在。奉我們主耶穌的名，並用我們主耶穌的權能，要把這樣的人交給撒但，敗壞他的肉體，使他的靈魂在主耶穌的日子可以得救。」

Once again, it is explicitly taught that this is done when the congregation comes together.

這裡再次明確指出，這項行動是在整個教會聚集時進行的。

Notice 2 Cor. 2:6, which refers to the man who had been withdrawn from, “This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man.”

再看哥林多後書 2:6，提到那位曾被處理的人：

「這樣的人受了眾人的責罰也就夠了。」

The point is that it was an action of the church.

重點在於：這是一項教會集體的行動。

Notice that in both Mt. 18 (there I am in the midst of them) and in I Cor. 5 (along with my Spirit), this group action carries the weight of heaven behind it.

無論是馬太福音 18 章「我就在他們中間」，還是哥林多前書 5 章「我的靈也同在」，都顯示這種集體行動有來自天上的權威支持。

Imagine if individuals were charged to practice this without the congregational force.

試想，如果每個人都可以自行決定是否執行這項紀律，而不需要教會共同參與。

The different levels at which it would be practiced would be astounding.

那麼每個人的標準將會有極大的差異。

Some would withdraw from a brother upon the first hint of sin. Others would likely never practice it.

有人可能一看到罪的苗頭就與弟兄斷絕交通；有人則可能永遠不會這樣做。

In the early stages of sin, some brethren would continue to fellowship the offender, while others would withdraw from them.

在罪剛開始發生時，有些弟兄仍會與犯錯者來往，而另一些人已經切斷關係。

Would this be effective? What message would it send to them? And to the world? It would be utterly chaotic.

這樣有效嗎？這會向當事人傳達什麼訊息？又會向世人傳達什麼訊息？

結果只會是一片混亂。

---

WHAT ABOUT FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS? 那家庭關係又如何呢？

With all of that said, Christian principles cannot be ignored.

即便如此，基督徒的原則仍不能被忽略。

Imagine a couple who have a son who is a homosexual, from whom the church has not withdrawn.

假設一對夫妻有一位同性戀的兒子，而教會尚未對他執行停止團契交通。

If he were to bring his homosexual partner home for the weekend, should they support that and allow them to share the same bed? Of course not.

如果他帶同性伴侶回家過週末，父母是否應該支持並允許他們同床共眠？

當然不應該。

We should never bid Godspeed to evil (2 John 10-11).

我們不應向惡行表示認同或祝福（約二 10-11）。

We cannot have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11).

我們也不可與黑暗無益的行為有分（弗 5:11）。

---

MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE AND PERSONAL JUDGMENT 良心與個人判斷的問題

What if it violates one’s conscience to maintain fellowship with his or her adult unfaithful son, though the church has never withdrawn from him?

如果一個人的良心無法接受繼續與自己不忠實的成年兒子保持交通，而教會又尚未執行紀律呢？

Then, he should not violate his conscience (Romans 14:5, 23).

那麼他不應違背自己的良心（羅 14:5, 23）。

But the principle of Romans 14 does not allow him to bind that conviction upon others (Rom. 14:22).

然而，羅馬書 14 章的原則並不允許他把自己的看法強加在別人身上（羅 14:22）。

What if a family decided to cut off communication with their adult daughter in an effort to win her back?

如果一個家庭決定暫時停止與成年女兒聯繫，希望藉此挽回她呢？

That would be at their discretion to do so, but with the understanding that it is their personal judgment, not the mandate of Scripture.

他們可以這樣選擇，但必須明白，那是個人的判斷，而非聖經明確的命令。

The restrictions of I Cor. 5 are not bound upon them (unless the church has formally taken this action).

哥林多前書第五章的限制並未自動適用在他們身上（除非教會正式執行了這項處分）。

If another family chooses a different course of action, they would not be wrong in doing so.

若另一個家庭選擇不同的做法，也不能因此認定他們錯了。

---

CONCLUSION 結論

The New Testament pattern places the responsibility for formal withdrawal of fellowship upon the congregation acting together.

新約的模式把正式停止團契交通的責任放在整個教會共同執行之上。

Christians must still exercise discernment, avoid participation in sin, and follow their consciences, but personal judgments should not be confused with the collective action of the church.

基督徒仍應保持分辨力、避免參與罪惡，並遵循自己的良心；但個人的判斷不應與教會集體的行動混為一談。

In all cases, the goal remains restoration, repentance, and the salvation of the sinner.

在所有情況下，最終目標始終是：

恢復、悔改，以及罪人的得救。

💫 編者小結（Editor's Note）

**個人可以選擇不來往，但那不等於教會正式的 withdrawal。**

**An individual Christian may choose not to maintain fellowship with a particular unfaithful believer, but that is not the same as the church's formal withdrawal of fellowship.**

根據本文作者的觀點，新約所描述的正式撤回團契交通（withdrawal of fellowship）屬於教會集體執行的紀律行動，而非個人單獨作出的決定。

According to the author, the formal withdrawal of fellowship described in the New Testament is a congregational act of church discipline rather than an action taken by an individual Christian alone.

然而，基督徒仍有責任運用屬靈判斷與良心，決定自己應當維持何種程度的來往與交通。

At the same time, Christians remain responsible for exercising spiritual discernment and following their conscience in determining the extent of their personal associations and interactions.

因此，個人可以選擇與持續犯罪而不悔改的信徒保持距離，避免參與其罪惡或表達認同；但這種個人的界線，不應與教會正式執行的紀律處分混為一談。

Therefore, an individual Christian may choose to distance himself or herself from a believer who persists in sin without repentance, avoiding participation in or endorsement of that sin. However, such personal boundaries should not be confused with the church's formal disciplinary action.

本文的核心區分在於：個人的良心判斷（personal judgment）與教會集體行動（congregational action）並非同一件事。

The central distinction made in this article is that personal judgment and congregational action are not the same thing.