Religious shunning

[Xeno.of.athens]

to remind you that shunning has been, and is, practiced by your own denomination.

This is a nonsense.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is a nonsense.

Does your denomination not practice excommunication anymore?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Does your denomination not practice excommunication anymore?

Do you not respect the OP in a thread?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Do you not respect the OP in a thread?

Of course I do. Excommunication existed long before "shunning" was used as a synonym for it. If you ask your friends if they were shunning you, they would most likely flat out deny it because most people, including yourself, associate it with those "other" folks that are not like us fine Christians, such as, for example, the Amish.

You might find this helpful - Excommunication - Wikipedia.

I like this from the lengthier article -

In some denominations, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the group, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community. The grave act is often revoked in response to manifest repentance.

 

[Dan Perez]

And we should be careful about the stone we throw, for we might be living in a glass house.

There is much about Trent I do not accept, and that is OK. It needs to be understood in its context - and the same might be said of the 39 Articles. We are known as Christians by who we are for, not who we are against.

Paul, among the many things he was, was philosophically a pragmatist. This is clearly born out in 1 Corinthians 13.

For now, we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide these three; and the greatest of these is love.​

And why is Rom 16:17 and 18 stones , as it is the HOLY SPIRIT that caused Paul to write ROMANS ?

I have seen many ASSEMBLYS ASK MEMBERS to leave and that happened to me .

Rom 16:17 and 18 is true .

dan p

 

[PloverWing]

I have seen many ASSEMBLYS ASK MEMBERS to leave and that happened to me .

How did that work out in your life? Did you repent of whatever-it-was and were you restored to the assembly? Did you find the experience to be one that helped and healed you spiritually?

I've spoken with people who were excluded or pushed out from their church in one way or another (though @Xeno.of.athens 's case is the first story of formal shunning I've heard), and I don't know of anyone who was later restored to fellowship in that church. In the cases I know of, the people left to attend another church, or else left the Christian faith altogether. So I'd be interested to hear of a story in which this type of church discipline had a positive outcome.

 

[Philip_B]

And why is Rom 16:17 and 18 stones , as it is the HOLY SPIRIT that caused Paul to write ROMANS ?
I have seen many ASSEMBLYS ASK MEMBERS to leave and that happened to me .
Rom 16:17 and 18 is true .

dan p

I don't think that Romans 16:17-18 is a stone. The point I was making was that historic documents like the Council of Trent, and also the 39 Articles should not be seen out of the historic context that gave rise to them.

And I accept that there are occasions when wisdom suggests that someone should take a break from a particular faith community, perhaps for damaging the fellowship, perhaps because of toxic relationships, perhaps because they need a different perspective. Ideally, that might be in the context of a pastoral conversation, rather than an edict.

Romans 16:17-18
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offences, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.​

So I would, with you, affirm the value of Romans 16:17-18. I am not sure it is altogether about shunning per se. It seems you have the issues of keeping an eye on and avoiding being held in tension here.

I think the question that was posed in the OP was more about should someone's affiliation with a religious community define our own relationship with them. Can Anglicans be friends with Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Baptists, or not? My answer is absolutely, and the reason is that there is more that unites us than tears us apart.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't think that Romans 16:17-18 is a stone. The point I was making was that historic documents like the Council of Trent, and also the 39 Articles should not be seen out of the historic context that gave rise to them.

And I accept that there are occasions when wisdom suggests that someone should take a break from a particular faith community, perhaps for damaging the fellowship, perhaps because of toxic relationships, perhaps because they need a different perspective. Ideally, that might be in the context of a pastoral conversation, rather than an edict.

Romans 16:17-18 ​

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offences, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.​

So I would, with you, affirm the value of Romans 16:17-18. I am not sure it is altogether about shunning per se. It seems you have the issues of keeping an eye on and avoiding being held in tension here.

I think the question that was posed in the OP was more about should someone's affiliation with a religious community define our own relationship with them. Can Anglicans be friends with Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Baptists, or not? My answer is absolutely, and the reason is that there is more that unites us than tears us apart.

I agree entirely with you that there is far more that unites orthodox Christian than divides them and we ought to keep a clear focus on those things.

That said, there are situations which do call for isolation of a member from the body, as in the case of excommunication, which ought to be a very serious matter for all involved.

 

[Dan Perez]

How did that work out in your life? Did you repent of whatever-it-was and were you restored to the assembly? Did you find the experience to be one that helped and healed you spiritually?

I've spoken with people who were excluded or pushed out from their church in one way or another (though @Xeno.of.athens 's case is the first story of formal shunning I've heard), and I don't know of anyone who was later restored to fellowship in that church. In the cases I know of, the people left to attend another church, or else left the Christian faith altogether. So I'd be interested to hear of a story in which this type of church discipline had a positive outcome.

I left that assembly and there were some that said to me personally , that if I left , that they would also leave and I told one to stay , as it was because they were not DISPENSATIONALIST and were unease with me , and even today , some are also unease with my MID-ACTS belief and half way agree .
And Romans verse that I wrote in Rom 16:17 and 18 are CORRECT . PERIOD and would like your thoughts on those verses ?

dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I've spoken with people who were excluded or pushed out from their church in one way or another (though @Xeno.of.athens 's case is the first story of formal shunning I've heard), and I don't know of anyone who was later restored to fellowship in that church.

One married couple shunning me is not a formal church sponsored action. The couple stood out as exceptionally intolerant of Catholics in their congregation. No one else in that congregation shunned me.

 

[PloverWing]

One married couple shunning me is not a formal church sponsored action. The couple stood out as exceptionally intolerant of Catholics in their congregation. No one else in that congregation shunned me.

Thanks for the clarification. It's really strange to me that a couple would choose on their own to shun you, without the rules of their church compelling them to do so, so I was assuming that they were carrying out their church's rules.

 

[FireDragon76]

The irony is that early Christians often only practiced this over egregious sins, not matters of doctrinal disagreement. The Rev. Rowan Williams has actually written a book about Arianism, and in reality Arian and Nicene Christians often lived side by side and did not shun each other.

 

[PloverWing]

I left that assembly and there were some that said to me personally , that if I left , that they would also leave and I told one to stay , as it was because they were not DISPENSATIONALIST and were unease with me , and even today , some are also unease with my MID-ACTS belief and half way agree .

I'm confused. I thought you were saying that being excluded from an assembly was a good thing for you. Was it a good thing or a bad thing for you? Are you arguing that shunning is a good thing or a bad thing, in general?

And Romans verse that I wrote in Rom 16:17 and 18 are CORRECT . PERIOD and would like your thoughts on those verses ?

Yeah, I'm not totally sure what Romans 16 means. Paul seems to be saying to separate yourself from people who cause separations. When I get to heaven, maybe I'll ask him to clarify what he wrote.

 

[RileyG]

I do not believe in shunning. I simply pray for their conversion.

 

[Fervent]

Shunning only seems strange in a predominantly guilt culture, since they tend to think in terms of law and punishment. The main reason its rare and ineffective in the west is the weak social bonds to begin with, whereas in a honor-shame culture shunning is far more effective which makes it less drastic since it generally achieves its end quicker. There is a time and a place where it is appropriate, but it's largely out of place in a culture that doesn't practice a strong social bond and prioritizes an individualist ethic over a communal one.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Shunning only seems strange in a predominantly guilt culture, since they tend to think in terms of law and punishment. The main reason its rare and ineffective in the west is the weak social bonds to begin with, whereas in a honor-shame culture shunning is far more effective which makes it less drastic since it generally achieves its end quicker. There is a time and a place where it is appropriate, but it's largely out of place in a culture that doesn't practice a strong social bond and prioritizes an individualist ethic over a communal one.

Quite true. In a contemporary American urban context it is hardly impossible for a shunned member of a denomination to find another church which generally is delighted to gain a new member with few or no questions asked. I am observing such a situation with the LDS which seems to be hemorrhaging young members despite its very tight familial and social bonds.

 

[FireDragon76]

It has nothing to do with our culture. Churches or sects that practice shunning often do so for reasons that are just wrong, such as disagreeing with the church or sect.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think that Romans 16:17-18 is a stone. The point I was making was that historic documents like the Council of Trent, and also the 39 Articles should not be seen out of the historic context that gave rise to them.

And I accept that there are occasions when wisdom suggests that someone should take a break from a particular faith community, perhaps for damaging the fellowship, perhaps because of toxic relationships, perhaps because they need a different perspective. Ideally, that might be in the context of a pastoral conversation, rather than an edict.

Romans 16:17-18 ​

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offences, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.​

So I would, with you, affirm the value of Romans 16:17-18. I am not sure it is altogether about shunning per se. It seems you have the issues of keeping an eye on and avoiding being held in tension here.

I think the question that was posed in the OP was more about should someone's affiliation with a religious community define our own relationship with them. Can Anglicans be friends with Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Baptists, or not? My answer is absolutely, and the reason is that there is more that unites us than tears us apart.

There is nothing wrong with a person being friends with other people of completely different religions. Religions that try to separate people because they have different creeds are evil, in my book.

 

[Fervent]

It has nothing to do with our culture. Churches or sects that practice shunning often do so for reasons that are just wrong, such as disagreeing with the church or sect.

It has everything to do with culture, since the reason it is seen as improper largely comes down to an ethic that places a high priority on individual conscience. In cultures that are dominated by shame shunning is commonplace and effectively less drastic because it is actually able to accomplish its ends more effectively. Shunning is just a tool for social engineering, one that is looked down upon in individualist cultures because there isn't a high priority on conformity.

 

[FireDragon76]

It has everything to do with culture, since the reason it is seen as improper largely comes down to an ethic that places a high priority on individual conscience. In cultures that are dominated by shame shunning is commonplace and effectively less drastic because it is actually able to accomplish its ends more effectively. Shunning is just a tool for social engineering, one that is looked down upon in individualist cultures because there isn't a high priority on conformity.

Religious shunning is not equivocal with broader social sanctions on bad behavior. I know about anthropology and have studied Asian societies. Shunning people because of their religious creed is not normative in any developed nation, whether they are individualistic or not. In Japan, nobody really cares if you are a Christian. They care if you cause problems for other people. The idea of cutting off longstanding relationships because of religious creeds is the stuff of cults, even in a group-oriented society like Japan.