by Open mind 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The points about Peter/Jesus and Thomas/Jesus are well made. The fact that the Watchtower supremos fail to follow the examples of early Christians and make their own rules up further exposes the organisation as a jumped up cult with a bunch of man made rules. Off at tangent, look also at the case of Peter baptizing Cornelius without ever demanding that he first resign from the military where he was a serving Roman army officer. Would the Dubs baptize a serving US marine?
Clam getting off track
Come to think of it... Jesus didn't even shun Satan or Judas.
Stating that a belief is "Biblical" or not is one of the biggest cop-outs ever.
Yes, literally speaking, the shunning is "Biblical"; but then, so is treating your slave properly, women keeping silent, and, if you stretch back into the Hebrew Scriptures, so is genocide.
Those who supposedly base their beliefs on a strict use of the Bible can have a field day, picking and choosing which verses they interpret literally and which they explain away.
I think that two seperate issues are being confused and need to be seperated. The concept of "shunning" as defined in WT theology, is foreign to the NT. That much is certain. Even the WT article that first promulgated the idea, back in 1981, admitted that the procedure developed from the more severe restrictions placed on the Jewish idea of identity, and expounded by the Pharisees and certainly not from the Person who taught the Parable of The Good Samaritan.
However, having said that, it must be admitted that every community of believers, whether social such as a primary school, or theological, such as a church is responsible for safeguarding the moral rectitude of its fellowship. In this instance, the matter of church discipline becomes important. Morality is a prime feature of the Christian faith. It claims to worship the God who IS love, and who has revealed His concern for the sanctity of moral codes of conduct among His worshippers.
Those persisting in violating the high moral standards expected of all, must be dealt with. Effectively. There can be no pussy footing around. And the local overseers, entrusted with the task of protecting the flock, must have a Scriptural basis for exacting divine standards.
Although it is true that no one is saved by his conduct, nor is anyone perfect, it is still expected that all believers would lovingly and freely subscribe to a sense of morality befitting the name of Christ. Persistant defiance of these standards must, inevitably bring divine retribution. The catalogue of sins mentioned in 1 Cor 5:11 clearly testify to the church's outlook on morals. Six are mentioned. Immorality,[ NO CHILD MOLESTORS HAVE ANY PLACE IN A CHURCH COMMUNITY!!! ] covetousness, idolatory, profanity, [both JFR and NHK were well known for their use of bad language, including the ''F'' word] alchoholism [enough said about JFR], and fraud.
If you were a parent with young children, your concern will be the protection that the local church accords them Being exposed to lewdness or profanity is not something to be contemplated. All must understand that there is a line that must never be crossed. Notice however, that the concern of 1 Cor 5:11 is morality, not doctrinal conformity. There is no excuse for imposing a uniform concensus of belief on all members in this passage. Nor is there an indication that such discipline was to be administered in such a way that familial relationships were to be distorted, simply to conform to the doctrinal imposition of a secretive leadership.
The ministry of the church is designed to lead the fallen one to a conviction of sin, and repentance.
It is the sad failure of the WTS to see the real thrust of this passage. In fact only very litte attention is given to moralirty in the WT conception of shunning. By far doctrinal probity is much more in demand. Anyone disagreeing with the anonymous leadership, even in the most trivial of ways is made to feel the pressure of shunning. In fact the latest trend in WT circles to secretly conclude child molestation cases with its accusers is ample proof that the WTS places theological conformity above immoral practices. It seems the leadership will protect you for being a child molester, as long as you subscribe to their unfettered authority. In this way they have grossly misrepresented what Paul was striving to maintain in his letter to the Corinthians.
In fact in my own case, my disassociation with the hedonistic leadership of the WTS was brought about by the shunning of several members of our congregation on the somwhat dubious grounds of "spiritual fornication" whatever that may have meant, when in fact their moral code was perceptably higher than the average member.
So yes - it is scriptural to discipline violators of the Christian code of morality, but whether that includes the WT concept of "shunning", especially within family circles, is much open to question. In fact the legacy of this monstrous practice, as seen in the misery created, the psychological damage perpertrated, and the consequent ruin in human relationships, simply to uphold the unwarrented authority of a deceptive leadership, is damning evidence that it is not scriptural.
Cheers
There was a guy in our church who is a pathological liar. Our minister confronted him. He denied the charge/made up explinations for all the lies. It was just SOO obvious he was lying that you could catch him even with small things. So the consensus was made among all of us close to him that we would just speak and be polite to him but as long as he continued to be dishonest, we wouldn't invite him to stuff after church. No embarassment was done to him ... and he did leave the chuch. He called me last week to catch up on things. I talked to him for a bit and then let him go. I later found out he lied to me in that very conversation. So the "discipline" done to him wasn't cultish. It was what anyone would do to a friend who was untruthful with them. I did hear in a sermon once to explain that scripture about not even saying a greeting to someone preaching false doctrine. He said that "not saying a greeting" was a phrase they used to mean that they endorsed the person who was going to speak to them and then he would be allowed to preach in front of doctrine. Absense of a greeting meant not endorsing this man anymore and treating him like a pagan. They would have still been polite and all -- just not have invited them in to have dinner with their family.
There was a guy in our church who is a pathological liar. Our minister confronted him. He denied the charge/made up explinations for all the lies.
LOL.... Am I the only one who finds this really funny?
"Are you a pathological liar?"
"No."
I very much dislike the disfellowshipping "arrangement". That having been said, the JW's were closer to the spirit of this scripture before 1980. When they extended their shunning treatment to those who simply left the JW faith, they went beyond what 1 Cor. 5:11-13 says. If a person disassociates himself, he is no longer one "called a brother" and so would not logically come under the shunning that would be implied from this passage.
There is no graceful way to simply exit the JW's, and for that they deserve it when people label them a controlling cult.
Each group has a right to decide how it will "safeguard" its beliefs - within the bounds of the law of the land, of course.
What gets me, is the ease with which "Christian" groups will say they are "simply" following the Bible when enforcing their own shunning policy.
One "sin" that always amuses me is "gluttony" - Paul lumps this is with other sins worthy of shunning. Given the fact that a growing percentage of people in "developed" countries suffer from obesity due to not only eating refined, fat saturated foods but also eating way too much, it is so suprrising that almost no one is kicked out of a group for over-eating.
Yet, should people have sex before marriage, they're kicked out if unrepentant. In short, it's easier to get kicked out for some "sins" than others, pssibly because in modern societies there's a greater awareness/acceptance of factors underlying some "sins". It's all very arbitrary and self-serving and there's nothing like rubber-stamping it with scripture.
Hey Gopher, Thanks for your comments. You said:
If a person disassociates himself, he is no longer one "called a brother" and so would not logically come under the shunning that would be implied from this passage.
Others in this thread posted a similar viewpoint as well. Please let me know if I'm getting this right as you see it.
Example: A person decides they're going to shack up with someone before marriage for a while but otherwise has no problems with "the church". So the congregation should shun them since they're still "a brother" but are a practicer of fornication. Am I right so far?
However, if that same person says, "Hey, in addition to shacking up, I think this whole (insert favorite wacky doctrine here) thing is a bunch of hooey, so I hereby renounce my membership in the congregation." Then, they're no longer "called a brother" and so don't need to be shunned by the congregation. Is that right? Or am I twisting your words?
The part of shunning as practiced by the dubs that seems blatantly "unscriptural" to me is the shunning due to slight questioning of doctrines. Also, shunning anyone who got baptized as a minor. Also.......... I'll stop right there for the sake of brevity.
Open Mind
So the "discipline" done to him wasn't cultish. It was what anyone would do to a friend who was untruthful with them.
And this is the point. Well said
The example in 1Cor. 5:11 was one in which a blatant disregard for all decentcy was demonstrated by a believer and the rest of the congregation had his same attitude.
Here was a man who slept with his step mother and many in the congregation was applauding him for his actions.......if you can imagine that. Remember, this was a newly established Greek congregation full of a people with ungodly manners who had a long way to go in learning what it meant to be a christian.
If someone did this type of thing in a church today......say a man slept with the pastors wife then went and bragged about it to all. Do you think a man like this would be a person that others would pal around with? Would any even WANT to pal around with a man who acted in such a way? Obviously not. This was the case in Corinth and so Paul was saying not to even speak to a loser such as this or else he'd think his conduct was ok.
In the example Jesus gave in Mathew 18 it was obvious he was talking about someone who didn't give a rats arse about correcting a fault he had done towards a brother. If you brother stole your lawnmower and you caught him and yet he insisted on not giving it back......would you or others hang out with a guy like that? Obviously not.
The point is....if a brother or sister in Christ is so bold that even when it's obvious they did something wrong and they just don't give a shit.....then don't hang out with such a person.
Personally, I think it's a no brainer to shun someone acting like a deliberate asswipe and is common sense without having to be told to shun someone such as this.
Gumasswipe shunner
Oh, one more thing
However, if that same person says, "Hey, in addition to shacking up, I think this whole (insert favorite wacky doctrine here) thing is a bunch of hooey, so I hereby renounce my membership in the congregation." Then, they're no longer "called a brother" and so don't need to be shunned by the congregation. Is that right? Or am I twisting your words?
A congregation cannot legally disfellowship one who verbally states they no longer wish to be a Jehovah's Witness and so the witnesses cleverly came up with the word "disassociate".
If a person renounces their standing as one of Jehovah's Witnesses they have disassociated "themselves"....and are to be treated exactly the same as one who has been disfellowshipped. In this way the organisation can kick them in the ass except do it legally. As a scriptural reason for treated one such as this they use 1John which says 'they went out from us because they were not of our sort". They feel these ones broke a promise in their dedication to god if they leave the organisation (which is the same as god to them)
Gumfalwell
