Refuting the Practice of Shunning

Dead Man Joaquin

The Watchtower claims that the practice of shunning is/was:

1) Scripturally tenable;

2) Practiced by early Christians.

How would you refute the above statements?

2 Corinthians 2:6 said about a man who had been disciplined because of certain misconduct "sufficient to such a one is this rebuke which has been inflicted by the many (or the majority, as the NWT translates it)".

That verse says a lot. It doesn't say EVERYBODY shunned the man, only a majority. So apparently it was left to the conscience of individual congregation members to figure out whether to hang out with this guy or not. And then after a while, Paul appealed to the congregation to have them stop ignoring him immediately. So it doesn't seem the discipline was invoked from the top down, but rather by people using their brains to determine who was and wasn't "good association".

Dead Man Joaquin

All righty, how about the second part (practiced by early Christians)?

journey-on

You will get well over a dozen different answers about refuting the practice of shunning.

Here's my oddball 2 cents worth: From a human standpoint, it's cruel and unloving, plain and simple. Without quoting specific scriptures,

most Bible readers can tell you the practice doesn't make sense when held up to the words and actions of Jesus Christ.

But, after he died and his ministry was taken over by others such as Paul, we begin to see exactly what Jesus told

us would happen. Paul and others began to set up all the extra rules and regulations and take it upon themselves

to ignore Jesus' words to "judge no man" and "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Doctrines and practices are INTERPRETATIONS only. You can take two very well-versed individuals with two different

doctrinal beliefs both basing their beliefs on the Bible. They will quote scripture and scriptural examples to bolster their

doctrine. Who is right? It all depends on THEIR interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses have chosen to quote two or three

trigger scriptures to shore up their practice of kicking people out that don't measure up to what they think they ought to be.

They ignore all the scriptures that speak about love and shepherding and forgiveness and reaching out to the weaker ones.

They have chosen instead to magnify the scriptures that talk about division and "not even eating with such a one". They

will use the scripture about how in the "last days there would be no natural affection" to rant against the world, but they

ignore that same scripture when they encourage a mother to disown her own flesh and blood for some doctrinal differences.

If there is a Great Judgment in our future, I truly believe it will be based on how much love you showed your fellow man, not

how much time you put in placing magazines for some publishing company and if you were able to disown someone you

gave birth to.

snowbird

When you read the letters of the Apostles Paul and John, you will note they both spoke out against badness that had infiltrated the congregations, but you will NOT find them urging the members to practice the extreme and cruel shunning as espoused by the WTS.

Paul, in his first letter, exhorted the Corinthians to remove a man for his shameful conduct; he didn't say anything about shunning. Instead, we find him in his second letter urging them to restore him. As an aside, I've often wondered about the woman with whom the said man was involved. Was she a member of the congregation?

John in his second letter advised Christians not to say a greeting to anyone who denied Jesus as having come in the flesh. He stated that anyone who denied this was the anti-Christ. Since the standard greeting in those days meant "may you have peace," no one would have wished a known anti-Christ peace.

The WTS knows its practice of shunning is unbiblical. Yet they continue it because of its effectiveness in keeping weak members under its control.

Sylvia

minimus

Scriptural shunning is not Watchtower shunning. Christians who were committing wrongdoing needed to be reprimanded by individuals within the congregation. Still, the NT is filled with persons who were tolerated for their actions and attitudes. In JWLand, everyone that spoke against the apostles or others would've been disfellowshipped. The fact is they allowed those that spoke against the apostles to remain within. Even Paul lamented of the attitudes of the "superfine apostles" that were within the congregation. If THEY weren't kicked out, who should be? They flouted Paul's authority.

dawg

Paul was an idiot, he argued with everyone including the apostles. Read where Paul went to the apostles about penis lopping-I would say circomsision but I can't spell for squat (dyslexic and too lazy to look it up) . They told Paul to quit putting too much stress on the Gentiles-they said to abstain from things strangled and from forniaction and back the hell off. Paul was a Jew, bordering on a Pharasee, he loved laws-even ones that called for penis lopping.

Basically Paul was an ass, who killed early Christains and was probably wacko. Anyone focused too much on whether one should have the head of their penis chopped off is one step away from a kamakazie mission in the first place. Next, Paul had hallucinations, the light and voice on the road to Damacus-I have my thoughts on that one I'll keep to myself.

Great news! You're no longer a witness and can now look at the scriptures in your own way... To me this is my view of Paul... you may differ but have no fear, I'm not guided by spirit and you cna question anything I say and I'll still talk to you... Now isn't that special?

Gopher

Where in the Bible is a committee of 3 older men specified? Where does it say that after reinstatement, you don't get to share in the discussions? Where does it say you don't get to be an MS or elder for a specified period of time? Where does it say you can't attend study meetings in private homes?

These procedures were all invented by the WTS incorporated.

minimus

Now, Dawg. Don't shoot nobody.

journey-on

Dawg....you are right on. Years ago I got into a discussion about just what I think of Paul. And I truly believe he

was an opportunist. He saw a chance to take the simple, albeit charasmatic, message of Jesus, and based on

its popularity, commercialize it. He hijacked it and turned it into something it was not meant to be. That simple

message of Christ is still around, but you WON'T find it in a religion started by Paul. (Even as I write this, I feel

guilty, but it's been the way I feel inside for a long time.)

Refuting the Practice of Shunning

Share this