Disfellowshipping- Pros and Cons

by Vitameatavegamin 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Frenchy

  According to the KS (elders’ book) disfellowshipping occurs only where there is no repentance manifested and it matters not how well known the offense is or will become. Theoretically. In practice this is a very different matter because people make the decision as to whether or not there is repentance shown. Many factors are supposed to be considered such as if this was the first offense or is this a pattern that is beginning to form. Brothers serving on the JC are admonished to determine the difference between weakness and wickedness. Do the circumstances surrounding the offense indicate that this was something that happened in a moment of weakness or was it planned. In theory, this is how it’s supposed to work. The sister was right in that admitting the use of BC pills would have hurt her case. Whether or not she became pregnant should have had no bearing whatsoever on the case. She answered correctly when asked to promise never to do that again and still it was misconstrued as an act of defiance or justification.

  In theory, DF’ing distances the willful, unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation and thus preventing an unwholesome influence over the members. By his separation from the congregation (including family and friends) he is expected to be moved to shame and repentance over his wrong course and return to the fold. Well over thirty years of being a JW with over half of that serving as an elder and I came to know that the real purpose of DF’ing (as it’s practiced among the congregations) is a punishment meted out as a deterrent against ‘wrongdoing’ for the rest of the congregation. It’s one more tool for control.

  When discussing disfellowshipping as practiced by JW’s one has to take into account not the ideal or theory behind it but what actually does occur. Some people are disfellowshipped so many times you need a score card to keep up with their present status. Someone here is not learning their lesson and the ‘cleanliness’ of the congregation is being continually spoiled by this individual. Although the ‘or’ book states that many months, perhaps a year or more should elapse before one is reinstated, we have cases of these six month wonders as in the case of one elder’s wife. Others are made to wait years and have to write a score of letters and grovel to no end to get reinstated.

  Then there is what I feel is the real crux of the matter. There should be a difference between shunning and disfellowshipping. If a person persists in a course that is considered and defined by a religion as being contrary to the stated beliefs of that religion then that person really should not bear the identity of one who belongs to that religion. That person should be reasoned with and made to understand that their course of action is distancing them from what they profess to believe by their membership in that religion. If the person insists on going down that road then I don’t see where it would be unfair for that religion to disfellowship that person, to make it known officially that this individual is no longer a recognized member of that religion and then leave it at that. Any shunning should be left to individual members of the congregation just like the extent of their association with other members of society who are not and never were members of their religion, including close, family members is left up to them.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Room 215

  Disfellowshipping and the shunning that it brings about are grotesque abuses of the congregatonal discipline urged by Paul, much as child beating is an abuse of a parent's responsibility to correct.
  As practiced today by JWs, dfing has been broadened far beyond whatever was intended by Paul and is nothng more than intimidation and bullying.
• 

  Frenchy

  The following case illustrates my point, I think. True story.

  Two cousins whose parents are baptized JW’s. From an early age both show a propensity for mischief. Both grow up attending meetings and going in field service. Both are given the spiel about the necessity of getting baptized. One gets baptized but the other one does not. As time progresses it becomes quite apparent that these girls are headed for trouble. Both fathers become elders and both try real hard to play down what the girls are doing. The one of the baptized girl has to do some real fancy footwork to keep her out of a judicial committee. In time, however, they grow up and there is no more hiding of the facts. Both are very immoral even by ‘worldly’ standards. Of course, the one that’s baptized gets disfellowshipped although her father does everything he can to prevent it. Yes, he’s df’d other people for the same offenses that his daughter is committing but somehow he sees her case as different. Human factor.

  Now we have two women who grew up as JW’s and recognized as such by the community. (The community does not know that one is baptized and the other is not. They see both families out in field service and going to the hall) One of them is now df’d while the other one is living in a trailer in her father’s back yard with men coming and going at all hours of the night. When they show up at the hall, one is shunned and the other is flanked by grinning sisters who are trying very hard to start a study with her. What’s wrong with this picture? Both know the same things and both are doing the same thing, one is treated like there’s nothing wrong and one is shunned like a leper. The only difference is that one had the good sense not to get baptized. Now the lesson is not lost on the young people in the congregation. They know what will happen to them if they get baptized and then ‘mess up’ later on. So what do you suppose they do?

  BTW, the son of the one that got df’d never did get baptized although pressure was put on him to do so after he had gone through the books. He was not so stupid as to not see how differently his mother and his cousin were treated. He’s married now and does not come to the meetings anymore but…we can still associate with him!

  “And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition.” Matt 15:6 NWT

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Frenchy

  room 215: I agree

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  joelbear

  Where is the term disfellowshipped in the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say to gather 3 men together to determine whether someone is repentant?

  I "disfellowship" people from my life all the time whose behavior or attitudes about life I construe to be dangerous to myself. I think association should be a personal decision.

  The fact that Jehovah's Witnesse have totally different rules for someone based on whether they are baptized are not is ridiculous. My oldest niece won't associate with me because I was baptized then DFed. She associates with worldly people and other relatives who now attend church, smoke, use drugs, have children out of wedlock, etc. etc. etc. Because they were never baptized, she feels free to associate with them. Bizarre.

  hugs

  Joel
• 

  Vitameatavegamin

  Joelbear,

  Interesting comment. I think the JWs feel that when you are baptized, you must know better, after all, you dedicated yourself to God and the Org. They feel if you leave, you are worse off than before because supposedly you did not know any better before baptism. The old "dog returning to it's vomit" scripture.

  It just goes to show you that dedication to God has to come from you're heart and you willingness to do what is right in the first place. No one can totally judge you're heart condition.

  In my opinion, wrong is wrong-whether "worldly" or a JW. A good JW should'nt justify association with worldly associates and shun the DFd. What a hypocrite!!
• 

  GinnyTosken

  I enjoyed Frenchy's case of the two cousins because I've experienced it in my family. Of the six people in my family, only my father and I were baptized. My mother and three sisters were not.

  I sometimes attend the Memorial with my parents because it means a great deal to my father. My mother, a smoker, is greeted with open arms and warm greetings. One of my sisters, not exactly a bastion of unwedded celibacy, is also greeted warmly.

  To make it a bit more interesting, I was baptized at age 11. I once asked the elders if I should be held accountable for a decision I made while so young. They told me that there was no way they could annul a baptism; however, I could get baptized again if I felt my earlier decision was not a mature one.

  On these visits to the KH, I'd often ponder this situation. We all went to the same meetings and studied together. We all knew the rules. Yet, I was judged more harshly simply because I made a promise and tried.

  I think Frenchy is right--this lesson is not lost on the young people in the congregation. I remember talking to my sisters about baptism. Their immediate response was, "But then you can get disfellowshipped."

  Ginny
• 

  taughtbyJehovah

  Friends,

  Peace to all. Nice to see the issue of
  disfellowshipping is still on the burner.
  It should be a last resort act on the part
  of the elders. It has it's use in a rarefied
  moment,to be certain. The bottom line is that
  we sinners have a mediator who is authorized
  by God to decide forgiveness or judgement.Wise
  men will pour out their heart and soul when a
  particularly gross error is committed, but only
  to Jesus Christ, our burden bearer. To share any
  sin is to leave your fate to men just like us,
  fallible and always in a state of disgrace their
  own selves.
  Atone to God for it,flee from such sin in the
  future when you see it coming,and remember your
  fellow man and that he may need you to forgive
  him one day for a trespass against you.Mercy
  triumphs exultingly over judgement.Besides,you
  don't really think you are gonna get over on God
  in the long run, do you? Hebrews 4:13.James 2:13.
  God bless you all, Larry
• 

  Frenchy

  Another point in this matter of the reason for disfellowshipping is what happens when a df'd person dies. "the brothers" are not allowed to do the funeral. What happens in most cases is that the family will bring in one of "Babylon the Great's" ministers to do the services. In a lot of cases, the members of the congregation will not go to the funeral even though the surviors are faithful witnesses.

  Who wants to go through all of that at such a time? Control.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Room 215

  And for all their insistence on the scriputality of the practice, the present policies are often in direct conflict with the Biblical record of the occurrence in Corinth. For example, in the announcement to the congregation, the person is named, the offense is not specified; it's just the opposite in the Bible.
  So today, an opportunity to use a specifc local example of how sin ensnares in an instructive lesson, the announcement simply activates the local ``grapevine'' gossip mill.... the ``sin'' can be anything from swimming in the local YMCA pool, cutting the lawn for the local church, buying a lottery ticket, up to murder.
  In this instance, and there are myriad others, where it's all too obvious that money -- and the possibility of fiscal or legal liability -- influences of even dictates WTS policy.
  In a controlled in environment such as Bethel, for example, when a family member was ``dressed down'' by one of Knorr's breakfast tirades, no words were minced about what the poor guy had done. In local congregations, however, the bland wording ``for conduct unbecoming a Christina,'' or whatever, is clearly invoked to avoid a libel lawsuit.
  Once at an elders' meeting with the Circuit Overseer (one Floyd Adams) we were ordered point balnk to ``back away'' from any pending dfing action if the accused brohter/sister threatened a lawsuit and/or to name the Society as a co-defendant.
  At which point I raised my hand and said I didn't understand the policy. ``We're supposed to be shepherds charged with protecting the sheep from harm, right? If so, why we should be intimidated by the threat of legal action? Is keeping our money, our homes, our assets, etc. more important than expelling those who would harm the flock? And if we were to lose our assets in the process, would not that be experiencing persectution for righteousness sake?''
  Of course, he had no answer; he muttered something about having gotten the order from his boss the District Overseer, having turned beet red in the process.
  The closing prayer was said, and one elder headed for the door and his car, shaking his head all the way... he never returned.