Disfellowshipping - Pros and Cons

Spectrum

When I was a JW I remember believing that disfellowshipping was JWs great and distinguishing feature.
Great, because it got rid of the people that didn't take our righteous path seriously and wanted the temporary trappings of the world including all the sinful stuff and brought them back into our puritanical line if they genuinely repented. The congregation therefore maintained a high christain standard.
Distinguishing, because no other religion banished their followers for unchristian conduct. You could do everything and anything and still be a catholic or orthodox christian worthy in the eyes of the priest.

Disfellowsipping, for me, gave a lot of trust and credibility to this organisation and convinced me that it was the closest to God's truth compared to the other religions that had a blase attitude to severe misconduct. It was like they didn't take the bible seriously, 20 hale Marys and your back on tract for paradise.

ozziepost

Spectrum:

I wonder, after all you've read here on JWD,what's your opinion now?

Lady Lee

Disfellowshipping - Pros and Cons

Yea I was convinced it was to "keep the cong clean" and teach people a lesson. I thought it was a good thing.

Well until it happened to me.

Now??? I still think it is a good thing.

Despite how much it hurt it convinced me to never ever go back.

Spectrum

Ozzie
I'm too tired now to give you a well thought out answer. I'll be back on the job in a few hours. It won't be a yeah it's all bad.

garybuss

People with unchristian conduct are actually the people many Christian churches welcome. They need the most help.

I deserved to get bit by the Witness people. All the trouble warning signs were there. My loyalty to my parents and Witness relatives was stronger than my willingness to follow my intellect. Emotion over intellect usually produces a bad result for me.

I think the big thing that kept me associating for so long was I got away with so much. If the Witnesses had started giving me crap when I was 18 or 19 I bet I'd have kicked the Kingdom Hall door 10 or 11 years sooner. But they mostly left me alone. My dad did a LOT of work for the Society and I think they didn't want to do anything to change that. So I rode my Harley to the Hall, smoked, drank, swore, had worldly friends, and dated worldly girls and didn't hide any of it. My big run in with them was over a 5 cent roll of Rainbow Lifesavers at a district assembly.

peacefulpete

Disfellowshipping works. if what you want is a group of people that are isolated from the larger world of thoughts and cultures. If you want a group that devalues variety and diversity. If you want a group of people that are willing to shelf friendship and family for conformity. These are the positives.

The JWs btw are not the only cult/sect to use shunning as a control. Other isolationist groups like the Ahmish for example practice it.

Honesty

I think it is great because that's how a lot of us got to JWD.

yesidid

Are we talking disfellowshipping, shunning, or both?

yesidid

Confession

This is my understanding of shunning within Christianity. Please let me know if I'm missing something here... (Thanks)

--------------------------------------------------------

Shunning is the act of deliberately avoiding association with an individual.

It appears that a form of shunning did indeed occur in the early Christian era, and that it was biblical.

1 Corinthians chapter 5 says...

“Actually fornication is reported among YOU, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, that a wife a certain [man] has of [his] father.” Then later it says, “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… Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”

"To quit mixing in company" sounds like the same thing as "deliberately avoiding association with an individual." This scripture does not mention anything about refusing to speak with such a shunned person, but it does teach that certain ones should be 'removed' from the congregation's association. But what sort of persons?

The original man in question had apparently begun a relationship with the wife of his father. No one knows the details of this, but the Watchtower Society has long suggested that it refers--not to the man's mother--but to his father's subsequent wife. This does not appear to be a situation in which this man had committed an act of adultery--or even a number of acts. It says the man "has" this woman, which leads me to believe that he was keeping her as a wife--that he had taken her away from his father and had begun a full blown marital-style relationship with her. It would also appear that he was still in association with the congregation at this time. To me this suggests a pretty powerfully rebellious attitude:

"Yeah, she's my dad's wife. Yeah, I'm living and having sex with her. Yeah, I claim to be a Christian. Hey, wanna go get some hummous with me?"

My conclusion? People claiming to be Christians, who deliberately and rebelliously carried on grossly sinful behavior were not to be associated with. You shouldn't even eat with them, since doing so might indicate a tacit approval of their behavior. But it says nothing about not speaking to them.

2 John 9-11 says...

“Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”

This scripture does teach that some people should not be spoken to. What people? Those who do "not remain in the teaching of the Christ." This suggests that they once did dwell within the teaching of the Christ. But did this refer to those who did not submit to the supposed authority of a body of men? No. The standard for shunning centered upon Christ--not men.

What about 2 Thessalonians chapter 3?

“Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly… For we hear certain ones are walking disorderly among YOU, not working at all but meddling with what does not concern them. But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother .”

Here again we return to the type of counsel given in Corinthians. Basically, if there were out-of-control Christians, the congregation was told to "withdraw from" them. In this case it does appear to include obedience to the basic instructions from the men--including Paul--who were taking the lead. But did they regard these ones as "God's enemies?" No! "Continue admonishing him as a brother," it says. This in no way supports the Watchtower Society's practice of disfellowshipping with it's accompanying shunning.

Of course the Society claims that the above scripture does not refer to "disfellowshipping," but instead to "marking" certain ones who may not have been guilty of anything major, but who were just walking unsteadily. They would have to conclude this in order to maintain their policy of shunning, wouldn't they? But this is a personal opinion--and by no means can be considered clear Bible teaching.

To me, it identifies how shunning was practiced in the first century Christian era. If you were bad association, people were encouraged to keep away from you. The idea that someone would be ignored, treated as an enemy of God and made to undergo--not the simple forgiveness taught by Christ--but a period of humiliation, is NOT biblical.

It is instead the way people who want to retain their power control others who threaten this power.

drew sagan

I think that disfellowshipping has shown itself to be what all authority structers eventually do. Fail.

The majority of people who are disfellowshipped have commited wrongs, things that most religions would pass over. Their taking such wrongdoing seriously is something worth noting. But I feel that since no man made religious structure can be flawless, the entire policy opens itself up to problems.

Instead of looking for "marks" that identify "true christians", I have come to realize that since the coming of Christ God extends out his mercy to us as INDIVIDUALS and NOT organized groups. The idea that there would be a goup here on the earth that would be the only acceptable one is absurd. I don't feel God works that way.

Disfellowshipping has pros and cons. I feel that the bigger issue at hand is not simply the idea of disfellowshipping, but instead religious authority in general.

Disfellowshipping - Pros and Cons

Share this