Should religions excommunicate anyone?

Question

Should any organization be able to demand that members keep the rules and teachings or be cut off? Is it useful to "disfellowship" scandalous members?

Answer 1

if the person is unrepentant it may be that they will try do hurt or lash out at others still belonging to there faith so it would be beneficial to "dis fellowship" them. Also it can give a religion a bad name if members of that religion are able to do as they please and act contrary to what they are teaching - it would make the religion look hypocritical

Answer 2

Today I don't think it is such a formal thing as it once was, at least here in America. (I only know about Christian religion). Today, there is a shunning that goes on, sometimes by just a few, sometimes by the whole church. It's not openly discussed...it just happens.......... and only after trying to restore the person back into proper church life. If a person will not be restored, be repentant and change, then it's better they leave the fellowship, lest they lead others the wrong way. After all, an organization is already established with it's own guidelines and rules. A person joins it ......not the other way around. If that person can't adopt/abide by the rules, they really don't want to be a part of the established group.

Answer 3

I think it depends on how they define excommunication and disfellowship.

Unless a person poses a physical threat to church members, I don't think they should be prohibited from attending meetings.

However, I think there is something to be said for adding that 'disclaimer' in there that says 'this person claims to be one of us, but believes differently and thus acts differently, so much so that we don't approve of him claiming to be one of us, thus reflecting poorly on all of us'

There are those who also believe that excommunication or disfellowship is beneficial for the individual as well. That baptism, or other signs of membership in the church places a higher responsibility and thus accountability on an individual. An ex-communication, in effect says 'this person isn't ready for that at this time' and relieves them of some of that accountability, not all I assure you, but some. Hopefully allowing the person to repent before coming back into the church and accepting that responsibility again.

When Christ suffered in Gethsemene, the Father had to leave him. Not only would a loving father struggle to watch his Son go through something like that, but in order to be our Savior, Christ had to understand what it was like to suffer without the Spirit. Since when we sin, we remove ourselves from the spirit until we repent.

So separating a person from the church and the spiritual blessings of it through excommunication or disfellowship allows the person to more humbly repent and seek forgiveness.

Answer 4

Yes, I feel like the practice should be maintained, for there is a Scripture that says something to the effect, "Woe unto them that soweth discord (cause schisms) among the brethren." We have a right to "...shake the dust off our feet (separate ourselves) as a testimony against them (those that sow the discord). As I do believe it's possible for a leadership to be able to change it's thinking when presented with proper evidence, I also believe it's proper for a religious body to be able to separate themselves from improper and Scripturally unfounded teaching using the texts I quoted above along with the evidence found in the Word to support the leadership's position. God asks us, "Why halt ye between TWO opinions?" He knows we have to make a stand and is trying to keep us from "amalgamating different theories into our faith system when the Bible clearly states that there is "ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism. ONE God and Father of all who is above all, through all and in you all."

Answer 5

in 1510 the Pope excommunicated an entire town in Italy, because their mayor wouldn't assent to give him the taxes he wanted. This decision was seen for the error it was, and was recinded in 1511.

No, excommunication is a bad idea. Religion is sectarian enough in nature, no need to make it a "cool persons only" club.

Answer 6

It is Scriptural.

"In my letter I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not meaning entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.” - 1 Corinthians 9-13.

Answer 7

Have you ever considered how utterly laughable it is that ANY human believes he has the power to stop communication between any other person and god? I mean if you actually assume there IS a god, and that He or She is all-powerful, what makes ANYONE think they can 'excommunicate' anybody else? The only thing sillier is that the person who is 'excommunicated' also believes it...

Answer 8

i suppose they have the right to do it, just as any group does. you get cut out of the basketball team if you can't make free throws, right? you get cut out of the rotary or lions club if you don't pay dues, right?

Answer 9

Why would you even want to stay in any church, once you realise that all religion is delusion, and dangerous delusion at that?

Once you realise this you will exile yourself, unless you are a masochist.

Answer 10

Oh James, that question is remarkably naive.