Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Christian Tradition II
February 10, 2011
Term Paper
Abstract:
In this paper, I will argue that Menno Simons and John Calvin shared
similar convictions regarding the necessity of excommunication, but that their ap-
plication was born of significantly different understandings of church, humanity,
and salvation. Both taught that excommunication protected the purity of the
church and was to be redemptive for the individual caught in doctrinal error or
sin. Each applied discipline along the three fold rule of Matthew 18 unless its se-
riousness necessitated immediate expulsion based on 1 Corinthians 5. They
also agreed that excommunication included avoidance, which Menno Simons
took further than Calvin who sharply disagreed with the Anabaptist practice.
Their differences arise with regard to human depravity, predestination,
salvation as justification alone, ecclesial and civil authority, and the visibility of
church. Calvin and Simons disagreed significantly in each of these, demonstrat-
ing that their underlying assumptions ought not be minimized even if their appli-
cation of excommunication appears similar.
Introduction
John Calvin (1509-1564) and Menno Simons (1496-1561) take their place in the
their respective confessional traditions, though neither is considered its founder. Martin
Luther and Huldrych Zwingli could be considered first generation reformers, with Calvin
and Simons belonging to the second.1 While Martin Luther is the name most associ-
ated with the reform movement, Zwingli is a close second. John Calvin and Menno Si-
mons are most noted for their influence in two distinct streams flowing out of the ferment
of church reform. Calvin, along with Zwingli, is considered a father of the Reformed
Church movement, while Simons belongs to the Anabaptist segment of the Radical
1 Timothy George. 1988. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. 20.
Reformation. Though Calvin was key in shaping the Reformed Church, Simons was
ther and Zwingli, both regarded discipline to be of absolute importance for the church.
They each taught and practiced discipline that included excommunication at its extreme
measure. As will become obvious, Calvin and Simons have a complex blend of reso-
nance and dissonance in terms of their understanding and practice of discipline. They
often share similarities in the priority and practice of discipline, but their underlying con-
victions and assumptions regarding the nature of church, salvation, and humanity are
these two important reformers, similarities in both the priority and practice of excommu-
nication will be shown to emerge from differences that should not be minimized, and in
Discipline as a Priority
The Augsburg Confession (1530) advocates that “The church is the assembly of
saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered
rightly.”3 Calvin affirmed this Lutheran understanding when, in 1539, he wrote “Wher-
ever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments adminis-
2 Michael T. Girolimon, 1995. John Calvin and Menno Simons on Religious Discipline : A Difference in Degree and
Kind. Fides et historia 27 no 1 (Winter-Spring):5.
3 Robert M. Kingdon, 2007. Calvin and Church Discipline. In John Calvin Rediscovered. Louisville, Ky: Westminster
John Knox Press. 29.
exists.”4 Calvin does not specify discipline as a third mark of the true church. Yet, he
regards discipline so highly that it is never separated from the two. He continues,
“Hence as the saving doctrine of Christ is the life of the church, so discipline is, as it
were, its sinews… All who either wish that discipline were abolished, or who impeded
the restoration of it… certainly aim at the complete devastation of the Church.”5 In other
words, Calvin believed that discipline was the critical component which ensured the ef-
Simonsʼ list of the signs of the true church include pure doctrine, scriptural sac-
raments, obedience to scripture, brotherly love, bold confession of God and Christ, and
the endurance of oppression and tribulation for the sake of the Gospel.6 Like Calvin,
discipline does not make this particular list. Likely, in Simonsʼ view, the issue of disci-
pline is subsumed within one or even several of the signs which define true church, be-
cause he clearly holds it as critical to the life of the church. In similar fashion, the list
does not include adult baptism, the primary sign by which Anabaptists were known,
though obviously it was critical to him. Menno was not a systematic writer as was Cal-
vin, who enjoyed a largely settled life with time to write and reflect deeply. Instead he
was a pastoral leader within the often chaotic and persecuted Anabaptist movement.
His writings exhibit a pragmatic, pastoral concern, which is one of the deep underpin-
specific treatments of the subject, he writes, “It is evident that the congregation or
4 John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 9
5 Ibid., IV: xii: 1
6 Menno Simons. 1554. Reply to Gellius Faber. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited by J. C. Wenger.
Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. 743
church cannot continue in the saving doctrine, in an unblamable and pious life, without
While both Calvin and Simons share the priority of discipline, their reasons for its
critical nature contrast at least in part. Simons understood discipline to be necessary for
two reasons: protecting the purity of the church and a genuine concern for the salvation
church with false doctrine or sin, but always with the intent to bring a wayward believer
to repentance. The process was centered in redeeming individuals back to pure faith
and was to be done out an attitude of love rather than judgment. Calvin agreed that the
purpose of discipline and excommunication protected the church from the contamination
of sin and false doctrine, but his primary concern was the honor of God. If sin was al-
lowed to exist within the church, the disgrace fell at least in part, on Christ as its head.9
In his words, “There are three ends to which the church has respect in thus correcting
and excommunicating. The first is, that God may not be insulted…”10 It was only within
the priority of the honor of Christ that he would then address the concerns of the indi-
vidual.
Both Calvin and Simons shared a common priority to allow scripture to be their
teacher and authority, consistent with the other major reformers. Further, they agreed
7 Menno Simons. 1558. Instruction in Excommunication. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited by J. C.
Wenger. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. 962
8 Frank Peters. 1955. The Ban in the Writings of Menno Simons. Mennonite Quarterly Review 29 no.1 (January): 25.
9 Wiley, Charles. 1993. "Hand This Man Over to Satan" : A Comparison of John Calvin and Menno Simons on Ex
communication. Fides et historia 25 no 3 (Fall):27.
church:
Matthew 18: 15-17: 15“If another member of the church sins against you, go and
point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you
have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along
with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three wit-
nesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the of-
fender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and
a tax collector.”
I Corinthians 5:1,5, 9-13: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality
among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living
with his fatherʼs wife... 5 you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of
the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 9I wrote to you in my
letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—10 not at all meaning the im-
moral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then
need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with any-
one who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is
an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what
have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to
judge? 13 God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among
you.””11
Calvin and Simonsʼ interpreted the texts similarly, but applied them in ways that
suggest that they saw them a bit differently. Calvin understood the application of disci-
neously: public/private sins, and minor/major sins12 . Private admonition was the first
step if, as Calvin writes, “one does not do his duty spontaneously, or behaves insolently,
or lives not quite honestly, or commits something worthy of blame” 13 These offenses
were considered fairly private and minor, meaning that discipline started with lower in-
11May, Herbert Gordon, and Bruce Manning Metzger. 1973. The new Oxford annotated Bible with the Apocrypha.
Rev. standard , containing the 2d ed. New York,: Oxford University Press.
12 Girolimon, 12.
munication should the person not submit to the admonition. However, when the sin was
deemed serious and public enough, Calvin invoked 1 Corinthians 5. He writes that in
these cases, “it is necessary to employ not only admonition and rebuke, but a sharper
remedy… punish him with excommunication as soon as… informed of the crime.” 14
Simons, until his later writings, adhered almost exclusively to Matthewʼs three
steps of admonition moving from private, semi-public, to public, after which came ex-
communication. As time went by however, Mennoʼs position changed. In his last treat-
ment, “Instruction on Excommunication”, Menno writes, "I would earnestly admonish the
reader that about eighteen years ago, I published a little admonition in which I made no
admonitions."15 Out of serious situations which included sins such as fornication and
sions between believers were to be handled by the three-fold admonition process (Mat-
thew 18), for a heretic one or two (Titus 3:10) and in the case of public blatant sin, no
admonishment except immediate excommunication (1 Cor. 5). In his thinking, the per-
son who committed such offensive sins had placed themselves outside the congrega-
Though they may have had some variability of practice, one of the significant
points of resonance between Menno and Calvin was to apply discipline regardless of
the person. This was of particular significance in Calvinʼs context where he was faced
the sovereign, [is] exempted from this discipline.”17 In the case of the ruling class, Cal-
vin believed it was more important for them to experience rebuke because they hear so
much flattery in their courts. Menno did not have to concern himself with the ruling
where one of the pair is excommunicated he writes, “Godʼs Word judges all flesh with
the same judgement and knows no respect of persons.” 18 One of the major issues for
Menno was to teach the limits of excommunication with regard to avoidance. This was
particularly complex within families, where Menno taught a more lenient level of avoid-
When it came to actually living out the process of excommunication, Simons and
Calvin differed significantly with regard to authority in placing the ban and the rigidity
with which it was held. The reasons behind these differences begin to expose their dif-
ferences both contextually and theologically. In basic terms, Calvin understood ex-
of Geneva and 12 lay elders20 whose authority extended only to ecclesial matters. In
cases where admonition had failed, excommunication was their highest punishment. In
17 Calvin, IV,xii, 7.
18 Menno Simons. 1956. A Clear Account of Excommunication. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited by
J. C. Wenger. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. 478
19 John Horsch. 1939. Menno Simons' True Position on "Avoidance". Mennonite Quarterly Review 13 no 3 (July):210.
20 Girolimon, 16.
addition to the Consistory, Calvin also understood that civil authorities had more exten-
sive authority, given to them by God, in the case of heresy which could be punishable
by death.21 With regard to the magnitude of discipline within the church, Calvin urged
and practiced moderation.22 Most often, the excommunicated remained so for only a
Mennoʼs understanding was significantly different, with which Calvin took excep-
tion. He writes, “Excessive rigour [is] to be avoided… in this respect the Donatists erred
most grievously, as do also the Anabaptists in the present day.”24 Simons advocated
that the authority to practice discipline was congregational, and was to be primarily ap-
plied using the three fold rule of Matthew. Excommunication, he writes, “is to be done
by the church, that is, no one shall ban by himself or at his own pleasure. It shall be
done by the congregation of God, after proper admonition” 25 This process of admoni-
tion was not done quickly. In some cases Menno advised waiting up to two years be-
fore invoking excommunication.26 Once in place, however, the ban was rigidly enforced
through avoidance. While Calvin and Simons agreed that excommunication meant
practice. When a person was excommunicated, the church was to avoid “communion,
21 George, 245.
22 Calvin, IV, xii, 9.
23 Girolimon, 16.
24 Calvin, IV, xii, 11 & 12.
25 Simons, 469.
26 Wiley, 22.
company, walk, intercourse, presence, usage, conversation, and dealings”27 with them.
Calvin, along with others, deemed this to be cruel.28 Simons responded to these
charges by describing the attitude under which this was to be carried out as well as its
“Avoid him if he rejects the admonition of his brethren, done in sighing, tears, and a
spirit of compassion and of great love… For we do not want to expel any, but rather
to receive; not to amputate, but rather to heal; not to discard, but rather to win back;
not to grieve, but rather to comfort; not to condemn, but rather to save… But those
whom we cannot raise up and repentingly revive by admonition… these we should
put forth from us, not without great sadness and godly anguish of soul, sincerely la-
menting the fall and condemnation of such a straying brother; lest we also be de-
ceived and led astray...29
The priorities of excommunication are clearly articulated as being the protection of the
church, and genuine love and concern for the salvation of the individual caught up in sin
or error. Mennoʼs understanding was that the church never expelled anyone unless
they had first removed themselves from the congregation by stubbornly clinging to false
doctrine or improper conduct.30 In this way, the church was simply acknowledging the
It is important to note that Calvin and Simons shared the same desired outcome,
which was the restoration of the individual to the communion of the church. Excommu-
nication was never the end of the discipline procedure. Restoration was allowed and
sought after, but again looked slightly different for each. The first requirement, shared
by both, was a statement of repentance by the individual. For Calvin, this was enough
27 Simons, 474.
28 Wiley, 20.
29 Simons, Menno. 1541. A Kind Admonition on Church Discipline. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited
by J. C. Wenger. Scottdale PA: Herald Press.412, 413.
30 ibid., 413.
as he states, “When a sinner gives testimony of his repentance to the church, and by
his testimony wipes the offense as far as he can he is not to be urged any further.”31
Menno went further than Calvin on this point. Restoration was not complete upon re-
time whereby the evidence of a changed life could be observed. In some cases, this
probationary period could last a year or longer, after which there was a brief, formal re-
Underlying Assumptions
At this point, it might easy to conclude that the major differences between Calvin and
Menno were primarily governance and scale. After all, Calvin was a magisterial re-
former endorsed by the civil authorities, while Menno Simonsʼ Anabaptist were literally
outlaws.33 It makes sense that Calvin would make use of a formal ecclesial structure
such as the Consistory, while Simons had to rely on the congregation in the absence of
formal organization. In terms of the rigidity and scale of excommunication, one could
easily draw the conclusion that this was a preferential decision based on how they each
believed restoration would best take place and how close to perfection they believed a
person needed to be before restoration could occur. However, drawing this conclusion
ignores some major underlying assumptions which were significantly dissimilar, and re-
quire examination in order to truly grasp how Calvin and Menno understood the church,
As was earlier stated, Calvin was a magisterial reformer endorsed and supported by
civil authority. His convictions regarding the need for reform did not include the basic
Christian, having been baptized into the faith at birth. He saw the civil government as
the Churchʼs co-vicar of God, but with distinct spheres of authority.34 In this way, he
emphasized that the church had the obligation to discipline up to the level of excommu-
nication, but the state had the right to of capital punishment in cases of heresy. Out of
this contextual understanding, Calvin argued for the enforcement of a uniform cate-
chism for the entire community to ensure that everyone understood Christian doctrine.
Discipline was the tool he used in order to maintain a community behavior pattern that
was Christian in nature.35 Some have argued that the ultimate effect of this was to cre-
Menno Simonsʼ rejected the medieval amalgamation of Church and State. In-
community of faith that existed distinct from the world around it. It was a fellowship
rather than an institution. Adult baptism undertaken without coercion was the binding
covenant for a believer to walk in the way of Christ within the community of faith.
Church for Menno Simons and the Anabaptists was visible and distinct, as opposed to
34 Girolimon, 22.
35 Kingdon, 25.
36 Mark J. Larson, 1998. John Calvin and Genevan Presbyterianism. Westminster Theological Journal 60 no. 1
(Spring):66.
ble, in that true faith could not be always determined for everyone in a society.37 As
conversion and baptismal vows where they had committed their lives to serving Christ,
Continuing a layer beneath their fundamental disparity of view with regard to the
authentic church, Simons and Calvin also did not see conversion in the same way. Lu-
theran and Reformed theology put major emphasis on the issue of justification by faith,
which was essentially a change in status before God. Simons took this further by be-
in the nature of the Christian, in other words, a new birth.39 This change allowed the be-
liever to live a righteous and holy life. In his own words: “In the same manner those
who are begotten of the living, saving Word of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ are by vir-
tue of their new birth so joined to Christ, are become so like unto Him, so really im-
planted into Him, so converted into his heavenly nature, that they do not teach nor be-
lieve any doctrine but that which agrees with the doctrine of Christ.”40 Where Calvin
called for a changed life in response to justification by faith, Menno believed that a fully
holy life was possible through obedience because of the change wrought by God within
the believer.
37 Girolimon, 22.
38 Wiley, 19.
39 ibid., 19.
40 Simons, 410.
Underneath the question of conversion was the issue of sin and its effects on
defines it, “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of
the soul, which first makes us liable to Godʼs wrath, then also brings forth in us those
works which Scripture calls ʻworks of the fleshʼ”41 Because of this total sin depravity,
Calvin saw salvation in terms of predestination whereby God chooses certain persons
to be saved because humanity has no capacity, in and of itself, to accept the sacrifice of
Christ.42
Menno apparently did not study Augustine. Rather than seeing sin as total cor-
ruption, Simons emphasized it along the lines of the evil inclinations and tendencies of
humanity. As a result, Simons did not adopt predestination as the determinative factor
in salvation history. Instead, he asserted that humans had the capacity to respond to
the grace of God through an act of the will. Charles Wiley summarizes it thus, “Menno
believed human beings, by virtue of their obedience, could live lives genuinely faithful to
what Christ commanded. Authentic obedience was not only possible, but required.”43
Pulling it Together
Having dug deeper into fundamental beliefs, we can now draw basic trajectories
for Calvin and Simons which result in their overall understanding and exercise of church
discipline leading to excommunication. John Calvin understood God to choose His own
church out of sovereign will, and this true Church existed within the larger society. Be-
cause sin had ultimately corrupted humanity, and salvation did not change this funda-
honor was at stake when fallen, but forgiven, believers transgressed. Discipline was the
means given the church to protect both Godʼs honor and the full implications of sin in a
believers life. By using the Consistory and state authority as the tools for discipline, the
behavior of the population was also controlled for the purpose of creating an ordered,
Christian culture.
In contrast, Menno believed that every human had the capacity to respond to
Godʼs initiative and, by an act of will, choose conversion. This conversion was a new
birth in which Godʼs grace initiates an ontological change of nature as the believer is
joined with Christ, making holy life possible through a yielded life of obedience to God,
which included choosing believers baptism. The church was called to sanctified living
as a pure community distinct from the world around it. Discipline was a pastoral gift to
the church whereby the church was kept pure, and transgressing believers were re-
minded of their baptismal vow to give their life over to Christ fully and without limit.
Summary
as church discipline, one can readily see that they shared much in common. They both
were concerned about the church being contaminated with unsound doctrine and sin.
that they receive appropriate admonishment toward repentance and restoration. Both
enjoined the same scripture texts and followed similar patterns in considering the sever-
was different in scale, they both required a lack of intimate contact in order that the ad-
monishment be keenly felt. In these ways, Calvin and Menno would have resonated
stand their theological convictions and assumptions regarding Church, State and soci-
ety, Simons and Calvin would have experienced dissonance with each other. These di-
vergences could be minimized by limiting dialogue only to the practice of church disci-
cates important fundamental theological convictions giving rise to the practices, how-
Contemporary Concerns
Our current context makes the comparison of Calvin and Simons all the more in-
triguing when the death of Christendom is considered. For many Christians, the cultural
Christian principles that is ordered, ethical, and controlled. For them, the demise of
Christendom is a crisis. Church discipline, practiced the way of Calvin is no longer ap-
plicable in the Western context with its blend of ecclesial and civil authority, however
much some wish it to be so. As the church of Jesus Christ is increasingly marginalized,
the notion of an invisible church within a larger society becomes less possible. In this
regard, Menno Simons seems to have an edge in our contemporary situation, with a
church called to exist as a distinct, holy people who are in, but not of, the world around
it. Even so, we are left with the underpinning theological questions of sin, human will,
and ontological change that need to be considered. Some questions rise to the surface
in such a dialogue. Is a pure, holy church possible, when raw data indicates other-
wise?44 Mennonites, Wesleyans, and Nazarene traditions, among others, would cer-
tainly believe it to be so. In a context which continues to change with regard to higher
levels of individual autonomy, how does a church practice truly redemptive discipline
when people are likely to leave one church for another? Within the Emergent Church
movement, how is discipline being shaped? It would seem that the question of church
in our contemporary context. John Calvin and Menno Simons were brilliant churchmen
during a time of turmoil and change within church and culture. Perhaps in the current
situation of deep shift, we can appreciate the passion of these men for the Church of
Jesus Christ and listen deeply to their writings, seeking what God would say through
44 Sider, Ronald J. 2005. The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience : Why are Christians living just like the rest of
the world? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
Annotated Bibliography:
Primary Sources:
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Arnold Hatfield 1539. Available from
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/.
This website contains a 1599 English translation of Calvinʼs major work. The
section in question is contained in Book IV, Chapter 12 entitled “Of the Discipline
of the Church, and its Principal Use in Censures and Excommunication”. The
primary emphasis that concerns this paper is contained in the first fourteen sec-
tions dealing with the importance and application of discipline to common people.
Wenger, John C., ed. 1956. The Complete Writings of Menno Simons. Scottdale PA:
Herald Press.
This is a comprehensive compilation of the writings of Menno Simons, which
have been translated from Dutch to English and edited by J.C. Wenger. The
specific writings in question include “A Kind Admonition on Church Discipline”
(1541), “A Clear Account of Excommunication” (1550), and “Instruction on Ex-
communication” (1558)
Secondary Sources:
George, Timothy. 1988. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Hol-
man.
This book presents four Reformers who arguably epitomize the significant
changes taking place in the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther and Huldrych
Zwingli are identified as first generation, while John Calvin and Menno Simons
understood as second generation reformers.
Girolimon, Michael T. 1995. John Calvin and Menno Simons on Religious Discipline : A
Difference in Degree and Kind. Fides et historia 27 no 1 (Winter-Spring):5-29.
This journal article traces both Calvin and Simons common commitment to
church discipline as a necessary component to authentic church. It identifies
their individual theological convictions and describes its shape, practices and
authority within church life.
Horsch, John. 1939. Menno Simons' True Position on "Avoidance". Mennonite Quarterly
Review 13 no 3 (July):210-212.
This journal article deals with the practice of “avoidance” with regard to individu-
als that had been excommunicated from the congregation. While there was no
disagreement as to the need for strict discipline, questions around the way in
which a person was avoided caused Menno Simons to define the practice over
several years in order to ensure that it was properly defined, especially in the
case of marriage where one spouse was excommunicated.
Kingdon, Robert M. 2007. Calvin and Church Discipline. In John Calvin Rediscovered.
Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press.
This journal article describes the convictions and the practices of John Calvin
with regard to church discipline. Though he does not name it as a mark of the
true church, discipline is clearly critical in church life for Calvin. The author de-
scribes Calvinʼs use of the Consistory as the means for discipline and its impor-
tance in establishing correct Christian beliefs and practices in Geneva.
Larson, Mark J. 1998. John Calvin and Genevan Presbyterianism. Westminster Theo-
logical Journal 60 no. 1 (Spring):43-69.
This journal article traces John Calvinʼs establishment of the consistory as the
ecclesial authority and the development of church governance. The author
seeks to identify how Calvinʼs “Institutes of the Christian Religion” influenced the
Westminster Confession and the development of Presbyterianism.
Peters, Frank C. 1955. The Ban in the Writings of Menno Simons. Mennonite Quarterly
Review 29 no 1 (January):16-33.
This journal article traces the convictions and development of Menno Simonsʼ
convictions and authority for the use of the ban as church discipline. He identi-
fies the central biblical texts, who they applied to, how they were put into prac-
tice, and how Simonsʼ writings demonstrate ongoing discernment as he sought to
practice them faithfully.
White, Robert. 1985. Oil and vinegar : Calvin on church discipline. Scottish Journal of
Theology 38 no 1 (1985):25-40.
This journal article emphasizes the consistency and priority that John Calvin
gives to church discipline throughout his writings. Though he affirms the Ausburg
Confession of authentic church having two marks, preaching and the administra-
tion of sacraments, Calvin asserts that church discipline is the necessary compo-
nent which ensures the efficacy of both.
Wiley, Charles. 1993. "Hand This Man Over to Satan" : A Comparison of John Calvin
and Menno Simons on Excommunication. Fides et historia 25 no 3 (Fall):16-32.
This journal article compares John Calvin and Menno Simons in their under-
standing and practice of excommunication as a tool of church discipline. It de-
scribed the similarities in terms of central biblical texts, as well as the way in
which excommunication was to be practiced. The article also describes several
significant anthropological differences between the two men, causing them to
have different emphases, and in some cases, practices when it came to the pur-
pose of excommunication.