Please Help: Disfellowshipping--Scriptural View

by GinnyTosken 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  wannahelp

  Hi Venice:

  You said:

  "Who's EXAMPLE should we follow JESUS or the Pharisees?"

  Well, that's just one more proof that the WTBTS is a modern day Pharisee!!! So sad they don't see it!!!!
• 

  wannahelp

  Hey You KNow:

  You said:

  "He could probably get you people to believe that the moon is made of green cheese."

  The GB just got new light, and said the moon was made of Green Cheese..

  At least with Ray Franz, we can honestly CHOOSE to accept or dismiss anything that he says without FEAR of punishment.. If, however, the GB said to you that the moon is now made of green cheese, you'd have to either accept it or face the 'wrath of the GB'.. Of course, that is your choice.. (accept 'gods' word via the F&DS <gag> or be punished!)

  - Wannahelp
• 

  NeonMadman

  If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.

  As has been pointed out, the above is the NWT rendering of Matthew 18:17. The above, however, is not the wording that ordinarily appears in Watchtower publications when Matthew 18:17 is referenced. Almost without exception, the verse is rendered,

  "If he does not listen to them, speak to the [responsible ones in the] congregation. If he does not listen even to the [responsible ones in the] congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

  Notice the subtle difference. This is another example of how the Watchtower subtly changes what the Bible says as it suits their theology and convenience. There is no scripture anywhere that authorizes secret, star-chamber type hearings with persons who have committed sins, for the purpose of determining whether they are repentant and should be allowed to remain in the congregation.

  Yesterday, on an xjw mailing list, I responded to someone who was asking how to respond to a Witness who had sent by email a number of arguments designed to prove that God works through an organization (what the JW had actually done was to send the actual text of the Reasoning book section on "Organization" - God forbid that a JW should have an original thought). One of the responses I suggested was that, even if God does work through an organization, the history of JWs provides plenty of evidence that it could not be their organization. But, obviously, from the JW point of view it is a given that, if they can prove that God has an organization, it must be theirs. They usually fail to see the subtle distinction between the two conclusions, because their faith ultimately rests, not in the Bible, but in the Watchtower. The Bible may say "A", and the Watchtower says that when the Bible says "A", it really means "A+B+C"; therefore the JW accepts the whole teaching as being 'scriptural'. (Even worse is when the Bible says "A", but the Watchtower says, "Yes, but in saying 'A', the scripture really means 'Z'" --- don't get me going!)

  Anyway, the point of all this is that a similar situation exists with regard to disfellowshipping. Is it scriptural for incorrigible sinners to be removed from a Christian congregation? Absolutely, and the JWs will gleefully cite numerous scriptures that testify to that. And because the scripture says "A", they will also accept the "B" and "C" that are added by the Watchtower, utterly without scriptural support, i.e. secret judicial committees, absolute shunning of family members, disfellowshipping for organizational offenses, etc.

  Someday, I would like to gather all my thoughts on this subject and put together a thorough essay, because it's a topic that really gets under my skin. However, I'm not sure I could add much to what Ray Franz has already said in In Search of Christian Freedom

  Tom
  "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
• 

  NeonMadman

  Franz is an idiot. He could probably get you people to believe that the moon is made of green cheese. The Scriptures are very plain about the matter. Paul said that he handed men over to Satan. That means that it was against their will that they were removed from the anointed congregation. Paul also said "remove the wicked man from among yourselves." The truth of the matter is very simple and easy to understand for anyone who loves truth. / You Know

  You couldn't have provided a better example of what I was speaking about in my post above in this thread. The scriptures you cite are quite plain and valid. But because the scriptures state "A" (if you don't know what I mean by that, please read my above post), you are willing to accept as being 'scriptural' the "B" and "C" that the Watchtower adds.

  Or perhaps you could also point out the scriptures that authorize secret judicial committee meetings, absolute shunning of disfellowshipped ones, including family members, and disfellowshipping for organizational offenses (for example, declaring someone "apostate" if he disagrees with any published teaching of the organization)?

  (With regard to the last item, I see much evidence in scripture of doctrinal disputes among first-century Christians, even resulting in major congregational problems, but I don't see a single case of one of the disputing ones being disfellowshipped for "apostasy".)

  Tom
  "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
• 

  You Know

  The GB just got new light, and said the moon was made of Green Cheese..

  That's silly.

  At least with Ray Franz, we can honestly CHOOSE to accept or dismiss anything that he says without FEAR of punishment

  That's even sillier. When you became one of Jehovah's Witnesses you had to meet certain qualifications. You didn't just walk in off the street and say you were a Witness. You had to become approved. You agreed to live by Christian morals and you also accepted the consequences of being disapproved by the congregation if ever you flagrantly violated the Bible's standard. You also agreed to accept the authority of the Watchtower Society to establish what was going to be taught as official doctrine within the congregation. You acknowledged as well the authority of the older men within the congregation and you agreed to be submissive to them. If now you no longer agree to any of those tenets of your faith you are no longer qualified to be one of Jehovah's Witness. And just as you had to originally be accepted and approved by the congregation in order to qualify as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you can also be disapproved and judged as unfit to be associated and recognized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. / You Know
• 

  You Know

  Neo Madman

  Or perhaps you could also point out the scriptures that authorize secret judicial committee meetings

  Absolutely. Paul chided the Corinthians because they were dragging each other before worldly judges and even though they were going to eventually judge angels some day they couldn't seem to field enough men to serve as judges in the congregation over trivial cases and disputes. Paul therefore clearly made the case for older men to be selected to serve in a judicial capacity. That's what Jesus was advising when he said to take such matters before the congregation, meaning those judges who represent the congregation.

  I see much evidence in scripture of doctrinal disputes among first-century Christians, even resulting in major congregational problems, but I don't see a single case of one of the disputing ones being disfellowshipped for "apostasy".

  Apparently, then, you are massively ignorant of what the Bible actually says regarding these matters.
  1 Timothy 1:3 says: "...command certain ones not to teach different doctrine...By deviating from these things certain ones have been turned aside into idle talk, wanting to be teachers of law, but not perceiving either the things they are saying or the things about which they are making strong assertions." That perfectly describes the mentality of the entire apostate movement. Furthermore Paul wrote at 1 Timothy 6:3 "If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride, not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and words. You exhibit the symptoms of being mentally diseased exactly as Paul described. What is more, in the context of Paul’s comments in the 1st chapter the apostle said that Hymaneaus and Alexander were among those who were teaching different doctrine and that he had already handed them over to Satan. / You Know
• 

  Room 215

  You Know,
  With all due respect, your depiction of a prospective new JW and his complete awareness of all the ramifications of his commitment, is disingenous.
  Acknowledgement by baptismal candoidates of the principles of ``submission to'' and ``cooperation with'' the appointed servants and the central organization are seldom understood by them to mean the total uncritical obedience they are in pracice, once baptized.
  Nor are they often made fully aware that the the consequences of expulsion apply not only the serious sins but also to the relatively trivial offenses, i.e, expressing any misgivings, however tactfully or respectfully uttered.
  Any dictionary will confirm that the terms ``submission'' and ``cooperation'' are in no way synonymous with the near-total knee-jerk subservience to human authority.
  Also, as a student of the Society's history, you must be aware that, in contrast with the immutable constancy of Divine Law, the severity of the current policies date from the ``apostate scare'' of the post-Ray Franz era.
  Whatever one thinks of him personally, any contemporary of his at Bethel knows that the his info is, as the English say ``spot on.'' What you may fail to appreciate is that at least some of us who are currently disaffected with Brooklyn wish it weren't so -- but wishes ain't gonna change anything. Among the rank and file, naivete about how the Society operates is endemic.
• 

  You Know

  As an example of the sort of twisted thinking of apostates on this issue, take the instance where Jesus said to let him be as a tax collector. Because Jesus treated tax collectors, and everyone else for that matter, impartially, it is taught by Franz and his disciples that Jesus meant to say that those who defraud their brothers should somehow be honored by the congregation. As ludicrous as that reasoning is it's truely amazing to me that people could fall for such specious reasoning. Actually, though, what Jesus said was: "let him BE TO YOU as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." Christ didn't say that the the offended congregation should treat the guilty one as Jesus treat gentiles and tax collectors. Jesus said to his Jewish audience to let the offending brother be as a man of the nations is to the Jew. The Jews would have hade no trouble understanding what Jesus meant because it was deeply ingrained in Jewish culture to hate non Jews. So Jesus used that to illustrate how Christians would view those who rejected the counsel of the congregation. We would view them as the Jews viewed the gentiles not as Jesus viewed them. Clearly, Franz is a fraud.

  / You Know
• 

  Room 215

  We know that Jews did not interact socially with Gentiles and conisdered tax collectors as traitors. But what evidence is there that Jews shunned Gentiles, refused to speak to them or answer their questions or the publicans' demand for payment? What would the Romans have done to a Jew who turned aside from a publican at his door to collect Caesar's tax?
• 

  mommy

  You Know,
  I actually read one paragraph of what you wrote:

  That's even sillier. When you became one of Jehovah's Witnesses you had to meet certain qualifications. You didn't just walk in off the street and say you were a Witness. You had to become approved. You agreed to live by Christian morals and you also accepted the consequences of being disapproved by the congregation if ever you flagrantly violated the Bible's standard. You also agreed to accept the authority of the Watchtower Society to establish what was going to be taught as official doctrine within the congregation. You acknowledged as well the authority of the older men within the congregation and you agreed to be submissive to them. If now you no longer agree to any of those tenets of your faith you are no longer qualified to be one of Jehovah's Witness. And just as you had to originally be accepted and approved by the congregation in order to qualify as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you can also be disapproved and judged as unfit to be associated and recognized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. / You Know

  Can you tell me how this applies to children of JW's? Should they also be subjected to the commitment that their parents made? If they made a decision in their youth, such as baptism, can you honestly hold them to that?
  wendy

  Blind faith can justify anything.~Richard Dawkins