Is shunning scriptural? At all?

Open mind

It's obvious that the JW view of shunning goes way beyond anything called for in the Bible.

1 Cor 5:11-13 says,(NWT) "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. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.""

What degree of shunning, if any, do you think the Bible is promoting here?

I often hear sentiments on JWD along the lines of "nowhere does the Bible promote shunning". But, it looks to me like these verses promote it to some degree.

BTW, if you've got a thread bookmarked that's already beaten this particular dead horse, kindly point me in that direction.

FWIW, I'm vehemently opposed to shunning family members, PERIOD. Even if the Bible spelled it out in great Talmudic detail like the Craptower does, I would not follow it. I'm just trying to get the viewpoint of any Bible apologists out there.

Open Mind

VanillaMocha73

Did Jesus shun Peter, after he declared he never knew Christ? Oops... Nope....

Open mind

I should probably limit the scope of this thread before it gets too diluted.

If a person is trying to live by the Bible, exactly how should 1 Cor 5:11-13 be applied in real life?

Open Mind

unique1

If you take the scripture completely literally you would not mix in company with them (eating, drinking, associating recreationally) until they are removed from their midst or removed from the congregation and no longer considered to be a "brother".

cab1000

I am very interested in others comments on this as well. I would love to have points to "reason from the scriptures" on this topic of shunning. I think the example of Jesus and Peter is a great start.

Tuesday

sure it has a scriptural basis, but so does not eating pork, human sacrafice, lying to save one's skin, murdering innocent civilians, etc. Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's something that is applicable in today's day and age.

LtCmd.Lore

1 Cor 5:11-13 says,(NWT) "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. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.""

Once you are disfellowshipped or you DA you are no longer a brother... they aren't even ALLOWED to call you 'brother' anymore. Why did Paul add the qualifier: "called a brother" in there, if that's not what he meant?

This scripture applies to to ACTIVE witnesses, who are sinning. Not the people who officially renounced their position as brother/sister.

This doesn't apply to ex-jws anymore then it applies to people who where never dubs in the first place. If you ain't a brother, then shunning you is not scriptural.

Lore

garybuss

Murder and slavery and polygamy are all scriptural.

AudeSapere

While an active JW, I dutifully (and cold-heartedly) complied with the shunning arrangement.

However, I questioned it outright more than a few times but never, ever got a satisfying answer - because there is no ligitimate, satisfying answer.

I never could understand how 'treating them as one of the nations' translated into 'treating them as though they don't exist'.

In my heart, I would take the scriptural counsel to imply that we would stay close friends with such 'sinners' but that we would remain friendly, coridal, helpful - if even at a distance. There is a huge difference in how we interract with our family and close friends, and how we interact with most of the other humans on this earth. To treat DF'd people as if they no longer existed just seemed so far and beyond the scope of anything resembling 'Christian'.

Yet, sadly, I complied for fear of suffering the same fate.

-Aude.

skeeter1

Over Easter, I picked up the old Bible...and opened right to this in John 20

Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus did not shun Thomas simply because he doubted Jesus. Instead, Jesus worked with him. So, no, shunning for questioning the Truth is not scriptural.

Skeeter

Is shunning scriptural? At all?

Jesus Appears to Thomas

Share this