IMO, they are basically sayin this if they disfellowship someone because that particular person has actually read the Bible on their own, and basicalyl come to the conclusion that the WT society is wrong in their interpitations.. Thoughts?
Has any JW called the Bible an apostate book?
by A-Team 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Oroborus21
Billions of persons have read the bible, many have believed it to be the Word of God and more or less inspired, and the beliefs or opinions they have arrived at have of course varied considerably.
Merely reading the bible, or believing in it, does not qualify a person for "membership" in a group which holds a certain body of beliefs and practices if that individual doesn't agree with that group AND if the group holds as one of its tenets that membership is contingent upon agreement.
The bottom line is that any group has the right to hold rules of what will qualify as membership in good standing and to hold those members to those rules. I actually don't think many people disagree with that fundamental principle.
Similarly, I would assert that it is the inalienable right of any individual to decide for his or herself whether he or she wish to associate with another person or not. In my opinion, Jesus encouraged us to find the proper balance between nonjudgment acceptance of all persons and avoiding intimacy with wickedness or corrupting influences.
Thus in my opinion, the principle of disfellowshipping is acceptable both from a social (or organizational) angle and from a scriptural one.
What most persons, like myself, have issues with when it comes to the practice of disfellowshipping among JWs are:
1) the actual procedures and practice are unscriptural, being secretive and often biased. The scriptures clearly show that similar processes or condemnation whether in OT or in NT were open and public.
2) the imposition of the judgment of a few upon the individual consciences of the flock. Each individual should choose whether to cast his or her stone, i.e. whether to associate with someone or not should be purely a matter of individual conscience.
3) the lack of experience and information conveyed to the young and converts regarding disfellowshipping. Never enough education in this area.
4) very questionable disfellowshipping "categories" such as dissent over doctrinal matters or the lumping of various activities under the "apostasy" umbrella
5) the use of disfellowshipping as a mechanism or tool for silencing criticism, debate and dissidents.
6) and finally, the lack of efficacy as a means to achieve its stated aims, namely either the "correcting" of the person or the "(spiritual) fortification" of the disfellowshipped person. (this seems especially true when the situation is that the person is disfellowshipped for some transgression apparently resulting from "weakness" or sin. The opposite approach would seem more efficacious of bringing the person into closer association so that their faith and desire to behave rightly can be upbuilt.)
-
A-Team
Where Im getting at is.........A JW gets disfellowshipped for basically reading and agreeing with scripture that concredicts what the WT preaches.
-
Narkissos
Welcome A-Team,
they are basically sayin this if they disfellowship someone because that particular person has actually read the Bible on their own, and basicalyl come to the conclusion that the WT society is wrong in their interpitations..
That's about what happened to me when I left. No non-JW or ex-JW influence, the Bible only.
After I had my first meeting with the elders (prior to the JC proper) one friend of mine told me they were shocked because I dared "quote the Bible at them" -- I was really surprised that they could find that shocking (not to mention that they told her about it).
There were quite a few warnings against studyingthe Bible without the WT literature back then (mid-80's). That should have raised a few questions indeed.
-
Oroborus21
right A-team,
ideally that is not the way it should be. ideally what the Society teaches and what JWs believe would correspond or at least there would be a tolerance for differences of opinion or belief.
but this is not the case.
many religions are very tolerant. others have tolerance to an extent. others like Witnesses, are not very tolerant. and still others are even more extreme. One of the aspects of a cult is the complete intolerance of differences (in many but not all cults).
That JWs are very intolerant, close enough to that line that crosses over into cultdom, is one reason why some persons attach that label to them.
-
Narkissos
Merely reading the bible, or believing in it, does not qualify a person for "membership" in a group which holds a certain body of beliefs and practices if that individual doesn't agree with that group AND if the group holds as one of its tenets that membership is contingent upon agreement.
(...)
What most persons, like myself, have issues with when it comes to the practice of disfellowshipping among JWs are:
(...)
4) very questionable disfellowshipping "categories" such as dissent over doctrinal matters or the lumping of various activities under the "apostasy" umbrella
5) the use of disfellowshipping as a mechanism or tool for silencing criticism, debate and dissidents.
How you can reconcile those two statements is beyond me. If indeed "membership is (acceptably) contingent upon agreement" you have no grounds whatsoever to protest against disfellowshipping for dissent, criticism or dissidence.
-
A Paduan
The bottom line is that any group has the right to hold rules of what will qualify as membership in good standing and to hold those members to those rules. I actually don't think many people disagree with that fundamental principle.
Membership to this group includes indoctination by brow beating from a young age, and the use of deception.
------------------------------------
In this state the spiritual abuse of children is against the law - that is, to threaten them or neglect their developmental needs due to interpretations of scriptures (personally I'd like to see them charged over it, at least).
Grown converts to this group are victims of organised deception - namely the marginalisation of the groups' past. By the time one enters this group a duty of care has already been breached.
-----------------------------------
People are concerned these days about "religious discrimination" to the point that they find it hard to say the truth openly anymore.
-
Oroborus21
Narksis,
I am not defending the practice of df'ng among Jehovah's Witnesses as i believe it is one which should cease and is destructive and counter-productive, not too mention unscriptural.
as for your question, the explanation essentially has to do with the degree to which adherence to a set of items is tolerated or necessary for the group.
to illustrate:
The Club of Farsandia holds that members in good standing must believe without dispute or denial (and that is the key "without dispute or denial")
Belief A, Belief B, and Belief C. and must perform Ritual 1, Ritual 2, and Ritual 3
these are fundamental requirements of membership. anyone who doesn't state they believe them or gives evidence in not believing them can't be in the Club.
so far so good i think. Most people would agree that the above is not outlandish and it is ok for the Club to establish these basic requirements of membership. (That is my fundamental premise in my post.)
Now, however, among some Farsandians, there are the Beliefs D and Beliefs E, and a Ritual 4.
The issues raised by my post address the situations where these non-essential beliefs may or may not be tolerated.
If the Farsandians are a tolerant group they may consider Farsandians who also Belief D and E and practice Ritual 4 to be approved members of the Club even if they disagree with those items or even if they are not "official" or requirements for membership. On the other hand, if they are not tolerant, they might try to exclude the Farsandians who hold the extra beliefs or who practice the extra ritual.
My personal opinion is that I think it is better when a group is more tolerant than not but of course this would depend on the specifics of the differences. If for example Belief D happened to completely contradict Belief A then it could not or should not be tolerated by the Club and the person could not, by definition, be a member.
--------
I wasn't going to expand but maybe it is necessary.
So my concerns regarding JWs is that DF'ng is used to silence criticism about what are essentially (in reality) non-essential or completely wrong beliefs and practices. Blood for example. Or DFng Bill Bowen for raising concerns about policies, practices and doctrines that result in potential harm to others.
DF'ng because a person doesn't hold to a belief in God, Jesus, an accepted minimum standard of moral conduct, etc., I have no problem with as I would view those things as essential to the definition of group membership.
-
Narkissos
Oroborus,
Your reasoning directly reminded me of one Watchtower issue (4/1, 1986) which I will never forget, because it was published a few weeks before I was df'd and provided the exact list of questions I was to be asked by the JC.
Why
haveJehovah’sWitnessesdisfellowshipped(excommunicated)forapostasysomewhostillprofessbeliefinGod,theBible,andJesusChrist?Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. Even some clergymen disagree with basic teachings of their church, yet they remain in good standing. In nearly all the denominations of Christendom, there are modernists and fundamentalists who greatly disagree with one another as to the inspiration of the Scriptures.
However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29) Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.
But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism. Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to "watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: "Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed." Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.—Galatians 1:8, 9.
Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (NewInternationalVersion) At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be "earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons."
Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one’s independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose "some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man." Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity—oneness in teaching and activity—could be and would be possible.—Ephesians 4:11-13.
Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a "faithful and discreet slave" upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present "great crowd" of Jesus’ "other sheep."—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.
Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.
Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God’s Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed "antichrist." John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: "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."—2 John 7, 10, 11.
Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.) Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point, qualified ministers will lovingly assist him. This accords with the counsel: "Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire." (Jude 22, 23) Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic, but it does highly value and work toward the unity encouraged in God’s Word.
Practically, JWs are allowed no extra belief and nothing short of the official WT belief. Legally this cannot be questioned (although the consequences of df'ng, and the instructions about df'd persons, might). But logically this makes the WT reference to authority of Scripture highly problematic, as the awkward phrase I highlighted in red above shows. It's kind of, "check what we say against the Bible provided you understand it as we do."
-
Oroborus21
Sure, and that is the big issue. What body of belief and practices should be essential?
Looking at the Org's history, the Russellite Bible Students tolerated much more differences. Russell generally held only a few necessary beliefs, most specifically the belief in the Ransom.
Gradually, more and more of the extras became "required" until what we have is the present bloated religion full of a bunch of these "non-essentials" and many of which (everything from 1914 to Blood to restrictions on beards, etc) that are unscriptural or lacking genuine bible-backing.
there are forces within and without the Org that are pushing to trim the fat so that in the end I believe it is the destiny of the worldwide association to return (revolve) back to something that looks much like the International Bible Students. Still Adventist and Millennialist but without all the crap that got added over the course of the 20th Century including the aspects regarding the Publishing Corporation Paradigm including the literature peddling and house-to-house "preaching."