Excommunication

===Christadelphians===
Similarly to many groups having their origins in the 1830s [[Restoration Movement]],<ref>In fact, the earliest use of the term in their literature refers to the disfellowship of their founder, John Thomas, by Alexander Campbell: ''The Christadelphian'' 10:103 (January 1873). 32.</ref> [[Christadelphians]] call their form of excommunication "disfellowshipping", though they do not practice "shunning". Disfellowshipping can occur for moral reasons, changing beliefs, or (in some ecclesias) for not attending [[Eucharist|communion]] (referred to as "the emblems" or "the breaking of bread").<ref>A distinction can be detected between these three reasons in that which of the three applies is usually made clear in the notice which the ecclesia will post in the Ecclesial News section of The Christadelphian. This is since one purpose is to make other ecclesias aware lest the member try to circumvent the suspension by simply going to another ecclesia. See "Christadelphians, fellowship" in Bryan R. Wilson, ''Sects and Society'', University of California, 1961 {{ISBN?}}</ref>

In such cases, the person involved is usually required to discuss the issues.<ref>The expected practice is to discuss first with 2 or 3 witnesses, as per Matt.18:15–20. See Wilson, op.cit.</ref> If they do not conform, the church ('meeting' or 'ecclesia') is recommended by the management committee ("Arranging Brethren") to vote on disfellowshipping the person. These procedures were formulated 1863 onwards by early Christadelphians,{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} and then in 1883 codified by [[Robert Roberts (Christadelphian)|Robert Roberts]] in ''A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias'' (colloquially "The Ecclesial Guide").<ref>{{cite web |first=Robert |last=Roberts |title=A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias |location=Birmingham |year=1883 |url=http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/books/guide/index.html |access-date=26 February 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061006040727/http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/books/guide/index.html |archive-date=6 October 2006 |url-status=dead}}</ref> However Christadelphians justify and apply their practice not only from this document but also from passages such as the exclusion in 1Co.5 and recovery in 2Co.2.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.thechristadelphian.com| title = See discussion of 1Co.5 in Ashton, M. ''The challenge of Corinthians'', Birmingham, 2006; previously serialised in The Christadelphian 2002–2003}}</ref>

Christadelphians typically avoid the term "excommunication" which many associate with the Catholic Church; and may feel the word carries implications they do not agree with, such as undue condemnation and punishment, as well as failing to recognise the remedial intention of the measure.<ref>The term "withdraw from" is frequently found as a synonym for "disfellowship" in older Christadelphian ecclesial news entries, but this usage is less common today since it is now more widely realised that the term "withdraw from" in 2Th.3:6, 1Tim.6:5 is not describing the full "turn over to Satan" 1Co5:5,1Tim.1:20. See Booker G. ''1 & 2 Thessalonians'', Nicholls A.H.''Letters to Timothy and Titus'', Birmingham</ref>

* Behavioural cases. Many cases regarding moral issues tend to involve relational matters such as marriage outside the faith, divorce and remarriage (which is considered adultery in some circumstances by some ecclesias), or homosexuality.<ref>Generally Christadelphians do not consider remarriage as adultery, but adultery is often at the root of a marriage breakup. See ''Reflections on Marriage and Divorce'', The Christadelphian, Birmingham.</ref> Reinstatement for moral issues is determined by the ecclesia's assessment of whether the individual has "turned away" from (ceased) the course of action considered immoral by the church. This can be complex when dealing with cases of divorce and subsequent remarriage, with different positions adopted by different ecclesias, but generally within the main "Central" grouping, such cases can be accommodated.<ref>Carter, J. Marriage and Divorce, CMPA Birmingham 1955</ref>
* Doctrinal cases. Changes of belief on what Christadelphians call "first principle" doctrines are difficult to accommodate unless the individual agrees to not teach or spread them, since the body has a documented Statement of Faith which informally serves as a basis of ecclesial membership and interecclesial fellowship. Those who are disfellowshipped for reasons of differing belief rarely return, because they are expected to conform to an understanding with which they do not agree. Holding differing beliefs on fundamental matters is considered as error and [[apostasy]], which can limit a person's salvation. However, in practice disfellowship for doctrinal reasons is now unusual.<ref>e.g. ''News from the Ecclesias'', in The Christadelphian, in a typical year (Jan.–Dec. 2006) contained only two suspensions for doctrinal reasons in the UK, both indicating that the member had already left of his/her own choice.</ref>

In the case of adultery and divorce, the passage of time usually means a member can be restored if he or she wants to be. In the case of ongoing behaviour, cohabitation, homosexual activity, then the terms of the suspension have not been met.

The mechanics of "refellowship" follow the reverse of the original process; the individual makes an application to the "ecclesia", and the "Arranging Brethren" give a recommendation to the members who vote.<ref>Christadelphians interpret the "epitimia of the majority" 2Co.2:6 in different ways; some consider it the majority of all members, some the majority of elders. See Whittaker H.A., ''Second Corinthians'', Biblia</ref> If the "Arranging Brethren" judge that a vote may divide the ecclesia, or personally upset some members, they may seek to find a third party ecclesia which is willing to "refellowship" the member instead. According to the Ecclesial Guide a third party ecclesia may also take the initiative to "refellowship" another meeting's member. However this cannot be done unilaterally, as this would constitute [[heteronomy]] over the [[autonomy]] of the original ecclesia's members.<ref>An exception noted in Roberts' Ecclesial Guide is where the original meeting is known for having a position out of step with other ecclesias. In practice however such cases are extremely unusual and the attempt to refellowship another ecclesia's member when the original ecclesia considers that they have not "mended their ways" may cause an interecclesial breach. The original ecclesia may notify the Christadelphian Magazine that the third party ecclesia is interfering in their own discipline of their own member, and news of refellowship will be blocked from News From the Ecclesias, and consequently the community as a whole will not recognise the refellowship. See Booker, G. ''Biblical Fellowship'' Biblia, Perry, A. ''Fellowship Matters'' Willow Books.</ref>