Expelled from a church - joined another - then churches merge - what happens?

Factual Questions
1

Continuing off of my recent thread

,

here’s an interesting question. This question, while perhaps phrased using Christian terminology (because that’s what I’m most familiar with), is intended to cover any religious group, whether Christian or not.

I remember reading some time ago about an incident where several church congregations in the US were expelled from their denomination (let’s call it “Denomination A”) over certain practices (I think it may have been that they either were accepting openly gay people as members in violation of the denomination’s official teachings, or were refusing to admit them in violation of the denomination’s anti-discrimination policies - I can’t remember). At least one of these congregations applied to join Denomination B and become congregations of that tradition, and were accepted with open arms. Seasons changed, time passed by, the days became the weeks, became the years etc. etc. Eventually Denomination A and Denomination B entered discussions and eventually merged. The congregation was then in a quandry - does the fact that they were expelled from Denomination A mean that they are now expelled from the new united church, or does the fact that they were in good standing with Denomination B mean that they must be in good standing with the new united church? Does anyone know if something like this (or in the same vein as this) actually happened? What was the eventual ruling?

I’m also interested if it happened at the individual level - for example if John Robinson is expelled from (or renounces membership in) a congregation of Denomination A, is accepted with open arms as a new member of a congregation of Denomination B (who are happy that the heretical A’s have lost a member). Twenty years later, the churches get over their differences and merge. Is John excommunicated from the new united body?

I know that the general trend has been for churches to split, but there have been several high-profile mergers in the relatively recent past, for example the United Church of Canada.

I’m also interested in cases where the denominations did not fully merge, but entered into a Full Communion type relationship such as is now present between certain Anglican and Lutheran traditions (e.g. person is excommunicated from a Lutheran church, storms off and becomes Episcopalian, then the churches enter into a full communion arrangement and the guy’s new church is now in “full communion” with the church that denounced him. Is the person in communion with one, both, or neither now?).

I know several people who have left a church and joined another in such a manner that if they wanted to return to the old church, they would be required to explicitly express repentance and possibly be subject to a formal penitence.

Obviously, the scope of this question is primarily in terms of church policies or the decisions that church councils, courts, etc have actually reached in real life, not how a secular court would see it (if they were even willing to entertain a secular lawsuit over church membership, which is doubtful in the US). In other countries, the law might get involved - has it ever?

2

I have a hard time imagining two churches merging if their fundamental doctrines weren’t the same (or almost the same).

Do YOU see a fundamentalist church with traditional family values merging with the Unitarians? Me neither.

So, if Joe and Susie were drummed out of a conservative church and joined a liberal church, I assume they’re safe, because there’s no chance of the conservative sect merging with the liberal sect.

3

Let me introduce you to this thing called the Episcopal Church… :smiley:

4

I don’t think there’s going to be a general answer to this question. It’s going to depend greatly on how the leadership organization of the church(es) in question is structured.

I also think it’s unlikely that this problem comes up after the fact. Presumably, any church with procedures for expelling members would think to bring that up during the merger negotiations.

5

Well, to use your example, every once in a blue moon, I’ll hear about some very conservative Episcopal or Anglican congregation that decides to join the Roman Catholic church.

In THEORY, could such a congregation have an ex-Catholic or two in it? Sure- but presumably, the ex-Catholics wouldn’t have any trouble finding a different nearby Episcopal congregation.

And, if those ex-Catholics had been ousted from the Catholic Church (or left of their ow naccord) over doctrinal or moral issues, what are the odds they’d have chosen to relocate in such a conservative Episcopal congregation, when they could surely have fund a much more liberal one with minimal effort.

6

Catholic Priests cannot marry, but there are married Catholic Priests, and the reason is what the Op asks about.

7

The two churches apparently have some difference of doctrine, such that one church accepts that individual and the other rejects them. When the churches merge, they would have to come to an agreement on that point of doctrine. What agreement they come to would determine whether that individual could be a part of the new, merged church.

8

Do churches keep a list of the excommunicado?

9

Of course, this makes sense. In a country like the US the new church is pretty much going to set whatever rules it wants, and it makes sense that if one of the traditions or congregations that is merging into a fold does have a history of expelling people, that they would consider whether or not the fact that the expellee is in good standing with the body being merged means that they should be accepted back, though, of course, some people don’t think before they act and it stands to reason that a merger could happen without a decision being reached.

A few people have WAGed. Has something similar to this ever actually happened IN REAL LIFE, where two traditions merged where one tradition had ex-followers of the other tradition, or where a congregation of Tradition A that had ex-Tradition B followers in it attempted to mass-convert to Tradition B?

e.g. :

Pastor: "As you are aware, the church has voted to leave Tradition A and join Tradition B. All those who are unwilling to do so are expected to leave this church. Next week, teachers from Tradition B will come to educate all the of you on the practices and doctrine of Tradition B. Any of you who are ex-followers of Tradition B and still with us on this will be required to go through a Penitential Activity instead of the doctrinal training, and you will be re-admitted per existing policies regarding ex-members. Everyone else, once you pass the doctrine class you will be admitted to the new tradition via the Conversion process that the tradition has established.

10

Note: this cannot happen with Catholics. Even the excommunicate are not denied entry into the Church, though they might be refused Holy Communion (but even that’s not certain). If Stalin were to get up from his miserable grave, he’d be let in the door. I suppose he or she might choose to leave, but that doesn’t mean they can’t come back any time.

However, small churches, all quite Protestant that I know of, admit, deny, or expel members by the will from the congregation, or a leadership group. I see this with Baptist Congregations especially, and sometimes harder Calvinist groups now that the Prebyterians have slowly done away with most of their theology.

11

And, in practice, this means that the person will still be allowed in the new combined church. If the two churches are agreeing to get together, it’s not the more liberal* church that has been an obstacle. The church with the more restrictive rules are loosening them, not the other tightening them. Barring divine revelation, people rarely come up with more restrictions on themselves. And this idea works even if both churches are liberal on only certain issues.

The conservative Episcopalians going Catholic is a poor example in that the church isn’t really merging but converting, but even it works. Who compromised? The church with the more restrictive policy. The Catholics allow the priests to remain married.

*Used in the classical sense of permissive. A liberal church is one that allows that there may be some controversy over X, while its conservative counterparts say that X is 100% definitely right or 100% definitely wrong. I am not using liberal to mean progressive, as it is used in U.S. politics.