Was the Watchtower Society Justified in Disfellowshiping Some Individuals?

by The wanderer 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  The wanderer

  Was the Watchtower Society Justified in Disfellowshiping Some Individuals?

  "But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with
  anyone called a brother that is a fornicator a greedy
  person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or
  an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."
  -1 Corinthians Chapter 5 verse 11

  The Cry of Protest

  This topic of discussion will no doubt produce a cry
  of protest from some. However, it is a fair question
  to ask in light of what the Bible says as noted by
  the opening scripture in 1 Corinthians Chapter
  5 verse 11 written by the apostle Paul.

  Is it Necessary on Some Occasions to Disfellowship?

  In order for a religion, any religion for that matter, to
  keep their congregation clean, do they have that
  prerogative to disfellowship or ex-communicate
  if the individual is a habitual offender of biblical
  standards?

  ---

  What are your thoughts?

  Please add your commentary so that we can
  weigh the different points of view accordingly.
• 

  under_believer

  No. Disfellowshipping denies mercy and love. Paul said a lot of things... he said for women not to speak in the congregation, for example--they were to ask their husbands questions at home. Possibly, Paul's advice made sense back then when the congregation was young and burgeoning, or possibly Paul was full of crap. Certainly, he didn't know he was writing things people would consider to be divinely inspired 2000 years later.
  
  If you must regard Paul's shunning advice as inspired, perhaps you can look at it this way: his letter wasn't written as an organizational edict. It was to be enacted by individuals. This would mean that deciding if someone needed shunning would happen on a person-by-person, conscience by conscience basis. Not this centralized, humiliating, "booting-out" process that happens with the Witnesses today.
  
  Another thing to consider: Why do Witnesses disfellowship? Of course they say it's to keep the congregation clean, but we all know that usually the biggest motivator is to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation. Does Paul's advice allow for that motive?
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  It depends on which perspective you are looking at a situation from. If someone is not conforming to wts rules, then they are liable to be disfellowshipped, and from the wts perspective, they would feel fully justified in taking the action.

  However, as most of us on here have found out, many of the watchtower's rules have no real scriptural basis anyway. They disfellowship people for amoking cigarrettes, going to another church and taking life - saving measures like blood transfusions, which are against their rules but have no scriptural backing. On the other hand, they try to protect paedophiles, who are criminals.

  It's what follows the disfellowshipping which is worse for the disfellowshipped individual of course, the shunning and seperation from friends and family, and there is certainly no justification for that.
• 

  Finally-Free

  Most organizations have some rules, requirements, terms of service. People who don't comply are fired, kicked out, etc. Society imprisons criminals. Companies fire people. Web sites ban people. Clubs kick people out. The difference is the watchtower's abusive implementation of the practice - which often ends up with ruined lives and families torn apart.

  A convicted murderer can be visited by his family in prison, but a JW who is caught smoking can lose his family forever.

  W
• 

  Gopher

  The Watchtower Society is self-justifying. To them, they can justify almost anything in their effort to retain control over their greatest asset, the "publishers".

  They further tighten the grip and increase the fear with their threat of disfellowshipping anyone who even talks to a former member.

  Under law, it seems they are free to do almost anything they want.

  Is this behavior civilized? Is it conscientious? Is it reasonable? Is it even scriptural?

  It doesn't matter to the rank-and-file JW. It is the order from headquarters.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  "But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with
  anyone called a brother that is a fornicator a greedy
  person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or
  an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."
  -1 Corinthians Chapter 5 verse 11

  The verb tense indicates 'presently sinning' in the matters he describes. Also, and this is purely my own opinion, the early house churches were private homes, in every sense of the word. I think Paul was alluding to the protection of family from impure influences. So when a drunk, or a braggart of his sexual infidelity showed at ones home for a meeting of Christian fellowship, he was turned away. Just as you or I would turn one away who sought to enter our home with defiling character. Meals were eaten at those meeting times too, so that explains his comments there.

  Two weeks or a month later he shows with an attitude of sincere change, we let him back in, hug him and share fellowship even more, since he has had a problem that needs love.

  There certainly was no formal proceedure, just an informal pragmatic protection for one's family and those invited into the sacred home. Once the 'sin' is past tense, so is the individual need to protect oneself from the bad influence.

  Jw's do just the opposite - they won't speak to you until you repent in some formal way - they give the power of individual pragmatism here to the elders to make the decision - then they let the offender into the most sacred place [in their opinion] that they have - the KH. If one is disfellowshipped in 1980 for fornication, never came back, married, lived a virtuous life, raised good children, is a good neighbor and loves God, not a dot of that matters in their opinion. He is still shunned until he dies, unless three men in a little room vote that he is forgiven. This whole idea is pissing me off as I write.

  It is a scriptural principle - abused in the most atrocious way imaginable.

  Jeff
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  No. Disfellowshipping denies mercy and love. Paul said a lot of things

  I agree with under_believer.

  If people have a definite belief in following this scripture, then there are plenty more things that Paul said and they should do.

  Before he said women should not teach, Paul said, "Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness."
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Jeff makes a good point here, also.

  In either case, the person who had doubts would never be cast out. The [unrepentant] sinner
  was a fornicator, idolater, etc. Clearly, a wicked person.
• 

  Butters

  I think that all Jehovah's Witnesses should be disfellowshipped. That will take care of the "greedy persons", and it will help eliminate the soc.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  If apostasy is proper grounds for DF, then ALL JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SHOULD BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED.

  Many have abandoned their religion- the one before they became JW's.

  All have abandoned their beliefs- that the Generation of 1914 would see the end, that blood fractions are wrong, etc.
  If you are a JW long enough, you must abandon your long-held beliefs, because you get DF if you don't.

  Therefore- ALL JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SHOULD BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED.

  Good call, Butters.