Death to the Pixies: but he does lay out how the Church, when it comes to procedure, cannot necessarily support itself from scripture.
Oh boy, do I ever agree with you there. Any organized religion is unsupportable from the Scriptures—no matter how it is "structured"—if part of the structure includes any group of people being in a relatively SUPERIOR position to another group the group has instantly leapt from Scriptural basis to human organizational structure.
I submit the organizational structure as defined in the Bible:
1 Corinthians 2-4; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 1-6; Ephesians 5; Hebrews 2-5
Besides this, what else is needed? And if men are heads AS the Christ is head of the congregation then we will be alongside our wives, not over them. Just as Jesus invites his disciples under the yoke he himself bears and as he himself became "beside" his Father a master worker. (Matthew 11:28, 29; Proverbs 8:30)
I asked you specifically to provide Scriptures to support your answers. You declined to do so. I admire your candor in admitting that there is no Scriptural basis.
I especially applaud the direct response on question #7. That one affected me personally just recently, as my father (PO in my wife's congregation) informed her that since I am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses I am no longer to be considered her spiritual head. I dealt with it by allowing her 2 weeks to find a Scripture to demonstrate that. She could not, despite asking my father for help. She does not mind if I pray for my family (just the two of us, for now) or study with her. She still asks me questions on Bible topics frequently.
However, I personally know of a situation where a woman was disfellowshipped for unrepentantly doing what my wife is doing, which brings question #5 sharply into focus.
On question #3, you mention that a requirement to confess sins was implied "given how shunning occurred" and you mention specifically "apostasizing" and Hymenaeus. You didn't include any Scripture to demonstrate the implication, and I have seen nothing despite having read the whole thing numerous times, to imply a requirement on Christians to confess to men. Hymenaeus and Philetus were very vocal in their teaching that the Christ did not come in the flesh and that the resurrection had already occurred—which is the only thing regarded so severely as "apostasy" in the entire NT.
In answer to question #4 you wrote: "No, in the scriptural example, it is much more embarrassing and painful."
I agree. It is also Scriptural and public whereas the current method is in total darkness and secrecy, whether the accused wishes it so or not.
Despite what you wrote in response to question #6, the how of shunning is specifically laid out in the Bible. In detail, as a matter of fact. By Jesus himself. It is also clear—without need of inference or implication—that Jesus direction in this matter was still in effect under the Apostolic period. We have (1) a Scriptural example (as you noted) that is irrefutably clear cut and (2) a direction from Paul to Timothy that is equally clear cut.
Since you were apparently unaware of the Scriptural direction on this point, I will provide the Scriptural proofs of the way the Bible says shunning should be handled, then I will briefly address a topic I did not mention before: reinstatement.
Matthew 18:15-17—“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.”
In no place does Jesus indicate that certain persons should be chosen to accompany as the "one or two more" (as in, elders). In no place does Jesus indicate that "congregation" is euphemistic for "only those who are in a leadership role" but the word indeed means the congregated or gathered people.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13—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. 2 And are YOU puffed up, and did YOU not rather mourn, in order that the man that committed this deed should be taken away from YOUR midst? 3 I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already, as if I were present, the man who has worked in such a way as this, 4 that in the name of our Lord Jesus, when YOU are gathered together, also my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 YOU hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 YOUR [cause for] boasting is not fine. Do YOU not know that a little leaven ferments the whole lump? 7 Clear away the old leaven, that YOU may be a new lump, according as YOU are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed. 8 Consequently let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, neither with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unfermented cakes of sincerity and truth.
9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 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. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”
The example to which you referred. Note that the extent and brazen shamelessness of what was occuring was BEYOND even that which the nations tolerated—in Corinth, mind you, which was widely known as an extremely licentious place in a very licentious world. Then Paul makes very clear that he is not recommending cutting off association with all fornicators, ONLY with those who wish to maintain a pretense of being "called a brother". The edict not to eat with such a man is in direct context with partaking of the body and blood of Christ.
1 Timothy 5:20—Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear.
Please demonstrate how this instruction is ambiguous. It does not say "announce the fact that reproving occurred" does it?
On the subject of reinstatement, we also have an unambiguous example of how it occurred.
2 Corinthians 2:5-11—Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him. 9 For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of YOU, whether YOU are obedient in all things. 10 Anything YOU kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for YOUR sakes in Christ’s sight; 11 that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.
As to the "appeals" process you mentioned, they saw no need since they actually had God's holy spirit. The Bible never makes even an implied reference to any such arrangement.
I am curious about your thoughts regarding this issue of disfellowshipping JW style.
One last point, on question #1 you mentioned you "believe that was held," and you failed to see the relevance of question #2. Here is the relevance: If Charles T. Russell was God's Channel of communication, of all people wouldn't HE know that? If all the corporate heads of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society comprised the Channel (at any time), shouldn't THEY, of all people, know that? And lastly, if—as is now held to be the case—ALL anointed are part of that Faithful and DIscreet Slave and always have been why didn't THEY, of all people, know that in 1919? I ask because that teaching wasn't firmed up until the early 1940s and was only hinted at during the '30s, with gradually increasing strength.
I would say, given the extraordinary claims of the organization relative to its professed unique relationship to God, this is an extremely relevant line of questioning. I am again curious about your thoughts on this point now that I have fleshed out the relevance.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
P.S. Your candor has earned my respect. You have been the most boldly honest JW apologist I have ever dealt with, my friend Shadow coming a close second. Given his circumstances I can cut him quite a lot of slack.