Excommunication

[Pendragon]

Under what circumstances do you feel it is right for a church to pass a writ of excommication on a member? Do you think it a fair show if the member has already quit the church, thus making it difficult for him or her to join a new church? Do you think that any accusation should be proven beyond the testimony of another person prior to such a step being taken? I'm really looking for firm opinions from anyone who will answer, not just Christians.

Thank you and God Bless

Pen

[motherhubbard]

Well, that is a hard topic in many ways. I may be wrong, but the only Biblical example I know of is the man who was openly having a sexual relationship with his father’s wife. If all sin is equal in God’s eyes then would any public unrepentant sin may be subject. But surely a person’s particular situation should be considered. Aren’t the strong to bear the burdens of the weak? I think the important thing to remember is that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Excommunication should not be a punishment, but should prick a sinner’s heart bringing repentance and which time that person should be brought back into the fold with much rejoicing.

[papayahed]

I don't think anyone should ever be excommunicated. The bible is full of stories of Jesus hanging out with the sinners, how can a church teach about love and forgiveness then excommunicate someone? Doesn't make sense.

[Pendragon]

Well, that is a hard topic in many ways. I may be wrong, but the only Biblical example I know of is the man who was openly having a sexual relationship with his father’s wife. If all sin is equal in God’s eyes then would any public unrepentant sin may be subject. But surely a person’s particular situation should be considered. Aren’t the strong to bear the burdens of the weak? I think the important thing to remember is that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Excommunication should not be a punishment, but should prick a sinner’s heart bringing repentance and which time that person should be brought back into the fold with much rejoicing.Indeed this was the case in the instance that you bring up. The man repented, and Paul asked people to go out of their way to see that he was not discouraged. This is the point I brought up myself when a excommunication was ordered for someone leaving a church. They call it "taking someone out from under protection of the church". I also argued that if the person left on their own, this was the case without a stigma being placed on them, that they didn't commit adultry or any other shameful sin (they disagreed with the pastor and left), and that they needed to be restored. I might as well have talked to the wall.


I don't think anyone should ever be excommunicated. The bible is full of stories of Jesus hanging out with the sinners, how can a church teach about love and forgiveness then excommunicate someone? Doesn't make sense.Another good point, and one that I have raised. The practice is not even to eat with someone who has been shameing the church. But, they take it to the point of not eating with those who don't even go to church. How do you get them into church if you act like this? I still would like more feedback.

[motherhubbard]

I think that sometimes man will place his ideas and standards above the Lords. I think that the Bible is very clear and easy as long as one doesn’t try to stick in some preconceived notion that isn’t actually there. There are a list of things to consider- is the major objective the salvation of the person in question? If not then I would think that motives needed to be reconsidered. Is it edifying? We shouldn’t do anything that is not edifying. Did the leaders of the congregation go to the person in the prescribed fashion?

I think that in many ways we have to be a little like diplomats. Some actions will do more harm than good and it changes for every individual.

I’m going to send a PM.

[Virgil]

I believe the fundemental reason for excommunication in the Roman Catholic church (I'm not qualified to speak of other reliegions) is the active preaching of heresy, or doctrine not accepted by the Church. Mind you that does not mean you cannot personally believe in non-doctrine beliefs, but preaching them is an act that undermines the religion. In no way is sinning an act that gets one excommunicated. A murderer is not excommunicated, for instance. This obviously is a simplified statement and probably needs someone way more intelligent on the subject than me to fully expound it. You might want to read what Wiki says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication.

[Pendragon]

I believe the fundemental reason for excommunication in the Roman Catholic church (I'm not qualified to speak of other reliegions) is the active preaching of heresy, or doctrine not accepted by the Church. Mind you that does not mean you cannot personally believe in non-doctrine beliefs, but preaching them is an act that undermines the religion. In no way is sinning an act that gets one excommunicated. A murderer is not excommunicated, for instance. This obviously is a simplified statement and probably needs someone way more intelligent on the subject than me to fully expound it. You might want to read what Wiki says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication.Of course, I am not speaking as a Catholic, but the same term applies to what even fundamentalists will do to people, and there sin is a biggie!

[Virgil]

Of course, I am not speaking as a Catholic, but the same term applies to what even fundamentalists will do to people, and there sin is a biggie!

Oh I know you weren't just thinking aboout Catholics. I was just speaking for them since that's my only experience.

[Scheherazade]

I don't think the Church has any right to excommunicate anyone, considering their unwillingness to take *any* action when it comes to their own who commit unmentionable crimes, especially those against children.

[Virgil]

I don't think the Church has any right to excommunicate anyone, considering their unwillingness to take *any* action when it comes to their own who commit unmentionable crimes, especially those against children.

Scher, like I said above you don't get excommunicated for committing sins.

[_Shannon_]

There are several different types of excommunication (at least within the Catholic Church)--the more formal types of excommunication are done for the good of the person in question, as well as for the good of the rest of the flock. It is not something which is done lightly, nor in haste.

A person who formally leaves the Church excommunicates himself...the Church only formally excommunicates those who publically desire to still be part of the Church , but repeatedly refrain from submitting to Her authority in a public way and in a way which might lead others into error.

It is also in a sense a matter of Canonical form--all are welcome back with open arms- even those b-tards who have so deeply harmed and wounded children and so man others. Afterall the Church is a hopsital for sinners- not a place for the righteous--however if one is recklessly, purposefully and defiantly endangering other souls...well it's important for the Church to let others know that they are not operating with approved authority.

[mtpspur]

Well this hit very severely. About two weeks ago I was talking to one of the summer help ladies at AAA in the back room where I was envelope stuffing and she was doing triptiks. I had remarked that when I first met her she seemed cold and distant. What had happened was that she had experienced two suicides to people she knew. One had occured the day she started work. Mystery solved.

Now what this has to do with the above is as follows. A young lady attending her church (age approximately 15/16 decided she was of the lesbian persausion and made it known to her youth pastor.

The church promptly threw her out.

She commited suicide two weeks later. My new friend wants nothing to do with organized religion.

To which I heartily agreed. I promptly told her a proper church is a hospital and refuge for worshipers of God and people with sin in their lives seeking help, healing and peace with God. I in no way condone that action of that church and am somewhat wondering what curse will fall upon them.

The only reason I can see for disassociating oneself from the church is if there is a firm disagreement about the primary doctrines of the Bible, i.e. slavation by grace thru the death and ressurection of the Lord Christ and anything that lessens His glory. There is no perfect church on earth anywhere and my largest complaint of late is the intolerance of believers one against the other over small issues. Ruth is attempting friendships with some very self righteous ladies of late. I keep telling her no one at Litnet tosses you off the forums for differences in beliefs or gender issues.

[_Shannon_]

I also don't think it's quite true that no one is ever seen as separated from the Church in Scripture-- Jesus allows those to walk away who cannot understand His teaching about eating and drink His Body and Blood in John 6.

At least from a Catholic standpoint, Scripture cannot be viewed without the scope of Tradition and Magisterial teaching. The first heresy, Arianism comes into play before the Canon of Scripture is even finalized... the Church needed to firmly define and explain what is was She did and did not believe, and make that abundantl clear to the faithful.


Well this hit very severely. About two weeks ago I was talking to one the summer help ladies at AAA in the back room where I was envelope stuffing and she was doing triptiks. I had remarked that when I first met her she seemed cold and distant. What had happended was that she had experienced two suicides to people she knew. One had occured the day she started work. Mystery solved.

Now what this has to do with the above is as follows. A young lady attending her church (age approximately 15/16 decided she was of the lesbian persausion and made it known to her youth pastor.

The church promptly threw her out.

She commited suicide two weeks later. My new friend wants nothing to do with organized religion.

To which I heartily agreed. I promptly told her a proper church is a hospital and refuge for woeshipers of God and people with sin in their lives seeking help, healing and peace with God. I in no way condone that action of that church and am somewhat wondering what curse will fall upon them.

The only reason I can see for disassociating oneselffromthe church is if their is a firm disagreement about the primary doctrines of the Bible, i.e. slavation by grace thru the death and ressurection of the Lord Christ and anything that lessens his glory. There is no pefect church on earht anywhere and my largest complaint of late is the intolerance of believers one against the other over small issues. Ruth is attempting friendships with some very self righteous ladies of late. I keep telling her no one at Litnet tosses you off the forums for differences in beliefs or gender issues.
Ughh.. I am so, so sorry for the pain and grief of your friend.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Is it a coincidence that, as with those other two great totalitarian institutions - the Communist and National Socialist Parties - the Catholic Church is both male-dominated and so preoccupied with who's in, who's out, what is heretical and what is proper to think? Isn't Excommunication the darker face of Beatification?

[Virgil]

Now what this has to do with the above is as follows. A young lady attending her church (age approximately 15/16 decided she was of the lesbian persausion and made it known to her youth pastor.

The church promptly threw her out.


I'm not sure what you mean "the church promptly threw her out"? Excommunication is a formal process and is nothing a priest can do on the spot, as far as I know. I'm not even sure a priest can excommunicate anyone. It may require a higher rank authority.

Or are you talking about a non-Catholic church?

[_Shannon_]

Excommunication isn't always a formal proceeding--like in the cases of excommunication latae sententiae...there maybe further actions taken after the offense, but through commiting any of the particular acts which have this attatched to them, one automatically removes oneself from the Church. Any further canonical sanctions would necessitate a bishop's approval.

It seeemed to me in mtpspur's post that it was not a Catholic Church, as there is no issue with a person being homosexual.

[dzebra]

I've been looking in 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Timothy 1. In these places, Paul is saying to "hand them over to Satan." In Corinthians, he specifies that the person should not be among them, so I'm gathering that the act of handing someone over to Satan includes removing someone from the congregation.

In Corinthians, the guy to be removed from the body was a guy who was having sex with his father's wife, and he was proud of it. In verse 6, Paul says, "Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" I take this to mean, basically, that he was negatively influencing other Christians, and since he was boasting, he clearly had no regard for Jesus. Paul continues on to say (in summary) that he told them not to hang out with people who lived in sin, but that he wasn't talking about non-Christians, he doesn't want them to hang out with people who call themselves Christians who are living in sin. I consider that to be blasphemy: knowing that you are wearing the name of Jesus, but acting as if it doesn't mean anything.

In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul simply states that he handed some people over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. He uses them as an example of people who have shipwrecked their faith by a) rejecting the fact that Jesus came to save sinners by his grace or b) refused to fight the good fight. I can't figure out which one of those it's talking about.

It seems to me that the people who are to be removed from the congregation are the people who are claiming to be in the brotherhood, yet are sinning with no intention of doing right. The hypocrites. They are the cancer of the Church, making God's love and Jesus' sacrifice appear worthless.

As far as proof of this behavior before excommunicating them, I feel that in a situation like this, everyone would already know, since there is no effort to make these sins private. In Titus 3:10, Paul says that if someone is stirring up division, to warn him twice before having nothing to do with him.

If the person has already quit the church, then I feel it could be beneficial to warn other Christians about that person, so they don't go trying to ruin other congregations. Paul frequently called out people by name who were messing things up.

I'm reminded of a story an elder in my congregation told me about the last time they "withdrew fellowship" from a person. He said that she had been having a lot of sex with people while she was not married. She eventually got pregnant, so the elders called her aside and said that they think she should get up in front of everyone in church and confess her sin and repent. Since it was a publicly known sin, they felt the confession should also be public. She told them that she didn't feel like she was doing anything wrong, and that she wasn't going to stop. They met with her several times, pleading with her to repent, but she said that she didn't need to because she wasn't doing anything wrong. They then made an announcement to the Church that they were withdrawing fellowship from her. A couple of weeks later, she came back and said she was sorry.

[mtpspur]

I apologize for not making it clearer--it was a Protestant church. My co-worker who is now a friend was upset enough about the topic that I carefully avoided getting the name of the church so as to keep my vindictive spirit in check. Not for a minute did I approve of their overreaction. For myself I would have referred the young lady to Romans Chapter 1 I believe for HER consideration and left the door open for further conversation. I can and have thrown a rock at sin but only at a fellow believer being stubborn about it as a wake up call. I assure anyone here my personal sins are and have been such that I would wish a like mercy from others and have received it from time to time.

[Nightshade]

You know it would have been helpful to explain Excommunication is in th OP post, instead of leaving people to have to rely on wiki ( thanks virg btw) which isnt a very reliable source. anyway that aside not being a christian Im not going to bang on about it, I just want to say that I thought the purpose of religions was to accept people? And anyway surly God is the only one who has the authority to Damn/ punish anyone really?
Then again Im a big believer in the damned is he who damns (another) mentality.
*shrug* http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

[Pendragon]

Night, I do apologize for not explaining what excommunication is, I felt that the term would be known. Thanks to Virgil for his post.

1. Excommunication: A formal ecclesiastical censure that deprives a person of the right to belong to a church.

And excommunication is not just a Christian thing. Islam is quite rabid about throwing out those they term "Infidels". Every other religion that I know of is pretty much the same. If the person crosses the line of beliefs, they will be thrown out.

_Shannon_, you are correct, it isn't always formal. I know of instances were a person was excommunicated In absentia. It was years before they even knew about it. The accusations upon which this was based were never really clear. I know because I was that person. This ruined my ministry and is why I preach from my home. So this is serious stuff.

mtpspur, I weep for your friend, and for the young woman who decided that death was preferable to shunning. I have felt the same at times. God alone has kept me in His care.

Scheherazade, the church needs to take action on those who are willfully doing such things. The church is for sinners to get help, but it isn't a place to hide your sins. This is the only reason I can give for excommunication, is for someone to do things like this, and refuse to repent and take responsibility for what they have done. The church doesn't need people like that, if they won't take responsibility for their actions, why are they pretending to be so holy?

Virgil, taking responsibility for your sins is something that everyone, regardless of religion should be required to do. Sin in a church will cause the church to loose the respect of any who are not in the church. Thus it needs to be handled. Going against the church tradition would have got Christ himself thrown out of church, and indeed, did so. He said you could make the word of God of no effect by your traditions. I think sin in the church is the more evil.

Dzebra, you make a good point. This guy we find in II Corinthians repented. Then there is this scripture:

Gal.6: [1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

I think it safe to say that we should be trying to get the people straightened out, not just so quick to throw them out. It does become necessary if they are causing problems in the church, but if they just want to come and we feel they are wrong in something, try to correct it with love, and recall that we ourselves are only human and subject to fault. If we are not guilty of the sin that we see in someone else, we probably still have something that we need to work on. So we shouldn’t be quick to judge and throw them out.

PrinceM,The who’s in, who’s out is the dark side of any religious belief. We should concentrate on our service to God, and not on trying to judge one another. Why is it that love is missing from our churches and instead the spirit of censure is there, to throw everyone out that has a minor disagreement? It is shameful!

God Bless everyone. May this continue to be a good topic.

Pen

[Virgil]

Virgil,[/b] taking responsibility for your sins is something that everyone, regardless of religion should be required to do. Sin in a church will cause the church to loose the respect of any who are not in the church. Thus it needs to be handled. Going against the church tradition would have got Christ himself thrown out of church, and indeed, did so. He said you could make the word of God of no effect by your traditions. I think sin in the church is the more evil.


Well, I did not say or imply otherwise. I was just trying to explain what excommunication was, at least as I understand it.

[Nightshade]

Night, I do apologize for not explaining what excommunication is, I felt that the term would be known. Thanks to Virgil for his post.

1. Excommunication: A formal ecclesiastical censure that deprives a person of the right to belong to a church.

And excommunication is not just a Christian thing. Islam is quite rabid about throwing out those they term "Infidels". Every other religion that I know of is pretty much the same. If the person crosses the line of beliefs, they will be thrown out.


Umm actually you are not allowed to do that in Islam, I think, they cant- or prehaps mustnt is a better word for it- stop anyone who wants to pray in a mosque from doing so whatever the denomination. Although of course what you could call the congregation, cant make people they deem outsiders feel very isolated and unwelcome. It boils down to what an 'Infidel' is and its all very complicated and long winded and involves loads of proceedures and stages before you can actually declare someone an infidel ( again I think not being an expert or anything).

[blazeofglory]

Under what circumstances do you feel it is right for a church to pass a writ of excommication on a member? Do you think it a fair show if the member has already quit the church, thus making it difficult for him or her to join a new church? Do you think that any accusation should be proven beyond the testimony of another person prior to such a step being taken? I'm really looking for firm opinions from anyone who will answer, not just Christians.

Thank you and God Bless

Pen

In point of fact all I understand is excommunication is something I distaste very much. All I say is there is no one impeccable to excommunicate anybody, for nobody is totally sinless,chastise and unadulterated to see others sins. While one has sinned how can one blame others.

All we know churches are full of corrupt people and do not live by the ideals of Jesus Christ.

Belonging to Church does not mean to be closer to Christ, and as a matter of fact Jesus' teachings have nothing to do with what Churches.

[puppyshoes]

First, I'm an Orthodox Christian, my church does excomunicate, but there has to be a really important reason. There's a big difference between leaving the church and the person being told to leave. Also a person may be banned from the sacraments but still attend services. A number of things can cause this sitiuation. For example, marriage outside the Church, or unbaptized children, abortion, and many others. With Orthodox most problems can be resolved. Sin is an action, homosexual acts are a sin, but no more so than any sexual intercourse outside of marriage, when the sin is commited the person goes to confession and are given absolution. The Orthodox don't believe in inherited sin, sin came into the world by adam, thus "Original Sin" but we don't believe that there is a taint of sin from birth. We sin because we live in a fallen world. It's hard enough dealing with my own sins without dealing with Adam's. Getting back to excomunation, the Orthodox are very conservative (not Political) we never change. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So is His Church. Some have said we're Stagnet. We see no need to change, Jesus got it right the first time, it didn't need improvements.

[Virgil]

First, I'm an Orthodox Christian, my church does excomunicate, but there has to be a really important reason. There's a big difference between leaving the church and the person being told to leave. Also a person may be banned from the sacraments but still attend services. A number of things can cause this sitiuation. For example, marriage outside the Church, or unbaptized children, abortion, and many others. With Orthodox most problems can be resolved. Sin is an action, homosexual acts are a sin, but no more so than any sexual intercourse outside of marriage, when the sin is commited the person goes to confession and are given absolution. The Orthodox don't believe in inherited sin, sin came into the world by adam, thus "Original Sin" but we don't believe that there is a taint of sin from birth. We sin because we live in a fallen world. It's hard enough dealing with my own sins without dealing with Adam's. Getting back to excomunation, the Orthodox are very conservative (not Political) we never change. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So is His Church. Some have said we're Stagnet. We see no need to change, Jesus got it right the first time, it didn't need improvements.

Puppyshoes, that's pretty much the same in Roman Catholicism.

[Niamh]

I don't think anyone should ever be excommunicated. The bible is full of stories of Jesus hanging out with the sinners, how can a church teach about love and forgiveness then excommunicate someone? Doesn't make sense.
I do agree with this but...

I don't think the Church has any right to excommunicate anyone, considering their unwillingness to take *any* action when it comes to their own who commit unmentionable crimes, especially those against children.

...those sick puppies should be shamed from their church for there own hypocrecy when preaching the word of god and Jesus. :mad: when i see what went on in my country at the hands of priests, an who the heads of the catholic church have hardly appologised for it, leaving it mainly for hte government and the courts to sort out, it makes me god damn mad.

[puppyshoes]

Those Catholic priests who molested those altar boys should pay under civil law. The fact that there's even a statue of Limitations on such offenses is the reason those priest weren't charged. The Church, East or West, is in the business of saving sinners. The Bible says that if a sinner repents then even the angels in heaven will rejoice. It's my understanding that those priest, still in the Catholic Church, were sent to monasterys where they would never come into contact with kids again. The fact is there is no Statue of Limitations on murder, molestation is the murdering of a child's mind and soul, fight to change the law. The sentences are very light, too. As voters in any country, don't complain, vote to change the law!!!

In NY State, there's no statue of limitations on 1st degree murder, but other murder charges do.

[Pendragon]

All we know churches are full of corrupt people and do not live by the ideals of Jesus Christ.

Belonging to Church does not mean to be closer to Christ, and as a matter of fact Jesus' teachings have nothing to do with what Churches.

Blaze, I am afraid I have to agree with you. There is no church and no religion that will get you close to God. You have to apply what you have been taught to your life, and you must make the decision to serve God or not to serve God. The church may help, but it cannot cure. That is an individual basis.

God Bless

Pen

[El Viejo]

Under what circumstances do you feel it is right for a church to pass a writ of excommication on a member? Do you think it a fair show if the member has already quit the church, thus making it difficult for him or her to join a new church? Do you think that any accusation should be proven beyond the testimony of another person prior to such a step being taken? I'm really looking for firm opinions from anyone who will answer, not just Christians.
.
Thank you and God Bless

Pen

When? Only when a person's behavior is harmful to the group, and then only when that person refuses to change said behavior.

Make it difficult to join a new church? One should be as concerned for the members of another congregation as for one's own. The other congregation should be alerted, and always has the option of offering another chance, or passing depending on their own circumstances.

Degree of proof? Except when the matter involves children, proof needs to be of the two or more witnesses variety.

There should always be room for repentance, but with certain offenses go certain restrictions. One may be a member of the congregation again, but perhaps not as the financial manager or youth pastor.

In the most egregious cases expulsion is the only real option.

But it's almost never this easy. One is more likely to find a pattern of failure and repentance. The body and leaders have a job here to determine a path that protects the congregation without completely cutting off the weaker member. With persistent failure, or escalating bad behavior, it's a judgment call as to when the problem reaches the point where excommunication is necessary.

[Pendragon]

When? Only when a person's behavior is harmful to the group, and then only when that person refuses to change said behavior.

Make it difficult to join a new church? One should be as concerned for the members of another congregation as for one's own. The other congregation should be alerted, and always has the option of offering another chance, or passing depending on their own circumstances.

Degree of proof? Except when the matter involves children, proof needs to be of the two or more witnesses variety.

There should always be room for repentance, but with certain offenses go certain restrictions. One may be a member of the congregation again, but perhaps not as the financial manager or youth pastor.

In the most egregious cases expulsion is the only real option.

But it's almost never this easy. One is more likely to find a pattern of failure and repentance. The body and leaders have a job here to determine a path that protects the congregation without completely cutting off the weaker member. With persistent failure, or escalating bad behavior, it's a judgment call as to when the problem reaches the point where excommunication is necessary.My sediments exactly! Two or three witnesses. And damaging to the group, not a dispute between two individuals, even if it involves the Pastor. The Pastor is not the dictator of the church, but a leader who must lead by example. What is good for the congergation must be good for the Pastor.

God Bless

[El Viejo]

My sediments exactly! Two or three witnesses. And damaging to the group, not a dispute between two individuals, even if it involves the Pastor. The Pastor is not the dictator of the church, but a leader who must lead by example. What is good for the congergation must be good for the Pastor.

God Bless

'Sediments.' Clever.

Pastoring can be hard. So can following.

[TuckyTulip]

Intercession is non existant. Straight to the source and no one
has the power to interfere with ones' personal relationship with
God.~ This is where 'Religion' rears its' head.:flare:

[Virgil]

Intercession is non existant. Straight to the source and no one
has the power to interfere with ones' personal relationship with
God.~ This is where 'Religion' rears its' head.:flare:

So may I ask why you are upset? If everyone has a relatonship with God then what does it matter if a church excommunicates someone. That person still has a relationshp with God. Look an affiliation works in two directions: you have a right to join or leave a church; a church has the right to include or exclude you. Both sides are free to make decisions.

[TuckyTulip]

I have no reason whatsoever to be 'upset', that icon represents the churches that people belong to. We all have opinions about everything on this earth, I just stated something that I believe in.. Have a good one now.

[Pendragon]

'Sediments.' Clever.

Pastoring can be hard. So can following.
Sorry! :blush: I wasn't trying to be clever, I simply cannot spell worth anything and have a tendency to accept the spell check without too many questions. The word is "Sentiments", I believe! :blush:

God Bless

Pen

[Pendragon]

Check this link! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25667782/?GT1=43001 Fair or unfair, you decide!

God Bless

Pen

My vote is he should have been called in and talked to, but stopping him from from receiving the sacrament is a bit harsh.