by GinnyTosken 34 Replies latest jw friends
You Know, I am so glad that I do not have to answer to you for my sins and instead answer to God. For God forgives in an instant, unlike man. Once I ask forgiveness and mean it, in Gods eyes it is forgotten.
Nuff Said.
"I don't want someone in my life I can live with, I want someone in my life I can't live without."
In my dealing with XJWs there is an assumption of knowledge on my part. Often, obviously, that assumption is not warranted. The instance I was referring to is 1 Corinthians the 6th chapter.
I can't imagine why you would have an "assumption of knowledge" when someone directly asks you for a scripture. The normally desired response would be to provide the scripture reference that has been requested. As you no doubt noted, I referenced in my remarks both the end of 1 Corinthians 5 and the first several verses of chapter 6, to which you referred. Of course, I can understand your not providing them directly as requested, since they do not say what you were trying to make them say in your reference.
That is true. That is also the situation Jesus was talking about when he advised Christians how to settle disputes among themselves, in the 18th chapter of Matthew. Those disputes though could involve fraud and greediness and slander and that's why judges would be involved in order to investigate the charges and remove the wicked man if necessary who refused to repent, or as Jesus said of the unrepentant evil doer: "let him be to you as a man of the nations."
As written, I agree with what you have said in the above quote. However, these remarks are not responsive to the question I put to you. Let me refresh you as to the question I asked which you have not even attempted to answer:
we still need scripture to prove (1) that the elders handling such cases of sin should do so in secret, (2) that in no case and at no time should the congregation ever be informed as to what the sin was, only as to the outcome of the hearing, which they must accept without question, (3) that witnesses would not be permitted at such hearings, except within very specific guidelines, and then, that these witnesses could provide testimony only and then be dismissed, not allowed to observe other parts of the hearing, (4) that the person 'on trial' would not be permitted to make any record of the proceeding, even taking notes, (5) that there would be no appeal from the decision of the committee except to another identical 'star-chamber' hearing. Please provide the scriptural directives for those five points.
I await your response giving me the scriptural authorization for the five practices of the Watchtower as detailed in the above quotation,
Tom
"The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
Thanks to all of you for sharing information about disfellowshipping. I’ve read your comments and have done some reading in Watchtower literature to refresh my memory as to how they present and justify disfellowshipping.
Two scriptural passages are used repeatedly to determine what to do if a member of the congregation commits a serious sin.
The words of Jesus at Matthew 18:15-17:
Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 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.
And the words of Paul at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:
In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 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.”
Both of these scriptures recommend that members of the Christian congregation distance themselves from brothers who willfully persist in sinful behavior. The verses also raise many questions. Who is considered a brother and member of the congregation? What sorts of behavior are considered sinful? Are some sins more serious than others? Who determines which brothers should be distanced? Is this decided by individuals, by the congregation as a whole, or by a small committee of elders? Is this matter handled secretly or publicly?
First I will comment on the scriptures themselves and then will discuss the questions above.
If I were studying the Bible on my own without doctrinal glasses, I would give the words of Jesus more weight than Paul’s. Jesus does not distinguish between degrees of sin; he says simply, “if your brother commits a sin.” Jesus’ approach is simple and effective. As Rem pointed out, “you” in this scripture is singular, not plural. Brothers were to discuss these matters individually. If the one sinning did not repent, there would be escalating publicity until the whole congregation was informed. The decision to distance oneself from a sinful person is still an individual one. “You” in “let him be to you” is again singular, not plural.
Informing the whole congregation is helpful in many respects. Brothers and sisters would know whether the sinful one had voted, committed fornication, disagreed with Watchtower doctrine, or had been a pedophile, and could be on guard accordingly. Those who knew the sinful one well might choose to try to help the erring one, would know how to proceed, and could judge whether such an attempt was spiritually safe. In contrast, the Watchtower’s procedure is very secretive.
What does it mean to treat someone as “a man of the nations and as a tax collector”? Venice thinks that Jesus meant how he himself treated Gentiles and tax collectors. YouKnow thinks that Jesus meant for us to hate such sinners, just as it was deeply ingrained in Jewish culture to hate nonJews. Room215 explains that “Jews did not interact socially with Gentiles and considered tax collectors as traitors.”
I looked around on the net, trying to find more information about how Jews treated Gentiles and tax collectors in Jesus’ day. Here are a few bits I found:
Any observant and faithful Jew kept a careful distance between himself and these creatures who had prostituted themselves to the pagan Roman empire. Jesus, as we know, did not respect this custom. He himself invited Matthew, a tax collector, to join his team of disciples.
The Jew had a low estimate of the Gentile's character. The most vile and unnatural crimes were imputed to Gentiles. They considered it not safe to leave cattle in their charge, to allow their women to nurse infants, or their physicians to attend the sick, nor to walk in their company, without taking precautions against sudden attacks.The Gentiles should, as far as possible, be altogether avoided, except in cases of necessity or for the sake of business. They and theirs were defiled; their houses unclean, as containing idols or things dedicated to idols. Their feasts and their joyous occasions were polluted by idolatry. You could not leave the room if a Gentile was in it because he might, carelessly or on purpose, defile the wine or food on the table, or the oil and wheat in the cupboard.
. . . It was not lawful to rent houses or sell cattle to Gentiles. Milk drawn by a heathen, if a Jew had not been present to watch it, bread and oil prepared by them, were unlawful. Their wine was wholly forbidden; the mere touch of a heathen polluted a whole cask of wine. Even to smell of heathen wine was forbidden!
These attitudes reek of prejudice and concerns about ritual purity in accordance with the Mosaic Law. Recommending such an attitude does not seem consistent with Jesus’ message and behavior, especially considering that Gentiles were later included in the congregation and ritual taboos concerning food and drink were discarded. I can understand hating bad behavior, but it does not seem Christian to also hate the person. I think it is a matter of Christian conscience to determine what Jesus meant by these words.
In a way, this is a moot point, because the Society brushes aside Jesus’ advice as only applying to lesser sins, such as fraud or slander, which can be worked out between brothers without elder intervention. Their basis for this is explained in Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, 1983 edition, page 143:
Where the sinner accepts reproof, seeks forgiveness and straightens the matter out, Jesus states there is no need to carry the matter further. This fact shows that, although serious, the offenses here discussed were limited in nature to such as could be settled between the individuals involved. This would not include such offenses as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, and similar gross sins that should be reported to the elders and handled by them. When the Law covenant was in force, these sins required more than forgiveness from an offended individual.—1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21In view of this and in view of the illustration that Jesus subsequently gave, as recorded at Matthew 18:23-35, the sins considered in Matthew 18:15-17 evidently were sins such as those involving financial or property matters—failure to make proper payment for something or some action involving a measure of fraud. The sin might damage one’s reputation by actual slander. In these cases, if the offender recognized his wrong, expressed willingness to right it to the extent possible and sought forgiveness, the matter could be settled by the offended one’s granting forgiveness.—Compare Matthew 5:25, 26.
This is circular reasoning. Because Jesus didn’t mention the need to take the matter before elders, as is the procedure for gross sins within the Watchtower organization, the Society assumes he was talking about lesser sins. Jesus doesn’t say such a thing at all, only “if your brother commits a sin.” The Society also mentions the Law covenant to establish a precedent, seeming to ignore that Jesus fulfilled the Law, making it nonbinding on Christians.
Their weakest support for applying Jesus’ words to lesser sins is referring to an illustration that follows in the same chapter, verses 23-35. This is the parable of the unforgiving slave, obviously a lesson in forgiveness, the same lesson that preceded Jesus advice about what to do if a brother sins. Because the parable mentions debts, the Society says that “evidently” this means Jesus was speaking about financial or property matters. Talk about missing the point!
Let’s look now at Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:
In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 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.”
As several in this thread pointed out, this scripture has to be understood in context. Paul explains the case at the beginning of the chapter, a member of the congregation was living with his father’s wife, presumably involved with her sexually. It is interesting because we hear what happened in this case from start to finish. The ending is described in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8:
This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him.
The Watchtower of November 15, 1985 shows that the Watchtower Society believes that Paul is talking about the same man:
Such discipline may have to be severe, as when the apostle Paul strongly urged the Corinthians to take action against a fornicator in the congregation. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5) . . . Servants of Jehovah are grateful for such discipline, even as the rebuked individual in ancient Corinth benefited and apparently was restored to loving association with the congregation.—2 Corinthians 2:5-8.From “Do Not Share in the Sins of Others,” page 18.
Paul speaks of a “rebuke given by the majority.” Not only does this imply that the whole congregation participated in disciplinary matters, but also implies that a minority in the congregation did not agree with the decision to rebuke. As hillary-step notes, no mention is made of restrictions, judicial committees, or announcements. The matter was also resolved publicly, not in secret.
What does it mean to be “mixing in company” with someone?
The same Greek phrase is used at 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15:
But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
As Quester noted, Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the phrase at 1 Corinthians 5:11 to mean total shunning; the phrase at 2 Thessalonians 3:14 is interpreted to mean marking only.
What about some of the other questions I mentioned in the beginning?
Who is considered a brother and member of the congregation?
To be a member of the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a person must be baptized. For Jehovah’s Witnesses, not only is this a symbol of repentance and dedication, but is also, especially since 1985, a contractual agreement to adhere to the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses and to submit to the rules and procedures of the ecclesiastical government of Jehovah's Witnesses. Even baptized minors are held accountable for this contract and can be disfellowshipped, as YouKnow confirms.
See http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/legal.htm
YouKnow also confirms this contractual agreement to abide by the ecclesiastical authority of Jehovah’s Witnesses:
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[bolding mine]
Stated more accurately, “You agreed to live by Christian morals as currently defined by the Watchtower Society and you also accepted the consequences of being disapproved by the congregation if ever you flagrantly violated the Bible’s standard as currently interpreted by the Watchtower Society” Following one’s Bible-trained Christian conscience is not enough; one must adhere to the Society’s interpretation of the Bible and current rules to avoid being disfellowshipped.
This contract presents problems when one’s conscience conflicts with the Society’s current teaching. YouKnow is currently facing this dilemma. He questions the Society’s involvement with the United Nations as an NGO but dares not speak out in his congregation. Here are some of his comments from the thread, “A Watchtower Society lie for UN ‘association’”:
I am more convinced than ever that Jehovah's judgments are going to lay the Watchtower low and that only the faithful, those who really do love the truth and actually have faith in Jehovah, will survive the purge and eventually be restored to his favor. . . .There is no question but that what the organization needs is a house cleaning, beginning with the house of God, otherwise know as Bethel. Jehovah is in a perfect position to do just that. . . .I have no interest in the petty power politics that undoubtedly go on at Bethel. Human nature naturally stratifies any organization into progressive and conservative factions. You can see that in the local congregational level and I am sure it exists at the top of the organization. . . . The only thing I am concerned with is Jehovah's will and word. That's why I am content to do my thing and let them do theirs knowing that Jehovah will do his thing in due time. And indeed, his work is strange as Isaiah testifies. At some point the brothers will realize that the sheet is too short for covering themselves with, then they will have no choice but to sit down and re-read the Bible and jetison a lot of the stuff that we have been saddled with.The only person I have spoken to about the UN scandal is my wife. I hope that I can keep my mouth shut and not disturb my brothers with this thing. . . . Really, the Bible says that it is beauty to cover over transgression. So, I really don't want to call attention to the scandal. It's a shameful thing in my opinion. Its disgraceful. . . .The Watchtower probably isn't going to be the agency through which those answers come during the crunch time. I think I might be in a position in the future to redirect the loyal ones more succesfully into the truth.
So while YouKnow points out that all baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses have agreed to submit to the doctrinal authority of the Society, he quietly disregards their authority and does his own thing, speculating about a time in the future when he might repudiate their doctrinal authority completely. YouKnow values his dedication to Jehovah more highly than submission to an organization. Admirable as this attitude is, still, under the Watchtower contract, this is grounds for disfellowshipping.
What sorts of behavior are considered sinful? Are some sins more serious than others?
The Watchtower Society decides which sins are serious enough to merit disfellowshipping. Some of these offenses have clear scriptural precedents; many offenses do not.
The elder’s manual, Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock categorizes sins that require a severe punishment:
The primary breakdown of disfellowshipping offenses resemble the ten commandments: theft, lying, unnecessary violence, failure to provide for one's family, etc. Peculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses (but still well-known as Witness standards) are the prohibitions against blood, tobacco and such "nonneutral [sic] activities" as performing civic service and voting (Pay Attention..., pp. 95-6). Less well-known are prohibitions against such activities as boxing and participating in a raffle (pp. 92, 135).
From http://www.watchman.org/jw/1404-1.htm
Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry also categorizes sins. Fraud and slander are considered “serious wrongdoing.” These problems may be worked out between brothers without elder involvement.
Fornication, adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, and idolatry are considered “gross sins” and require elder involvement. The Organization book uses the Mosaic Law covenant as an example and cites 1 John 3:16, 17 in support of classifying sins:
If anyone catches sight of his brother sinning a sin that does not incur death, he will ask, and he will give life to him, yes, to those not sinning so as to incur death. There is a sin that does incur death. It is concerning that sin that I do not tell him to make request. All unrighteousness is sin; and yet there is a sin that does not incur death.
Interestingly this same scripture is used by the Catholic church to justify classifying sins as venial or mortal. “A sin that does incur death” is “mortal sin” in other translations. The Catholic church also has a similar practice. Venial sins need not be confessed to a priest; mortal sins must.
The Society’s viewpoint on many topics have changed over the years, so offenses that once merited disfellowshipping no longer do. Some practices that were okay in early years no longer are. Reading one’s Bible is not enough; one must be sure to keep up with current rules and procedures of the Watchtower Society.
“Confession” is a topic heading in Reasoning from the Scriptures (I have the 1985 edition). Under the subheading, “When a person sins against God,” Psalms 32:5 is quoted:
My sin I finally confessed to you, and my error I did not cover. I said: “I shall make confession over my transgressions to Jehovah.” And you yourself pardoned the error of my sins.
Even though they have emphasized “to Jehovah” with italics in their quote, confessing serious sins only to Jehovah is not acceptable practice among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Serious sins require must either be confessed or reported to the elders. Yet, the Watchtower condemns this practice among Catholics:
Furthermore, if Catholic dogma followed the Bible, the sin-conscious Catholic would confess his sins to God, asking forgiveness through Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:9–2:2) The intercession of a human priest at any stage of “justification” has no foundation in the Bible, no more than the accumulation of merits upon which the doctrine of indulgences is based.—Hebrews 7:26-28.w85 12/1 Righteousness Before God-How?
As a side note, it was once considered wrong to share spiritual fellowship with a disfellowshipped person, including minors. This stance appears to have softened according to the Watchtower of October 1, 2001. Below is a quotation from an older magazine contrasted with a quote from the October 1, 2001 issue:
If a minor child is disfellowshiped, the parents will still care for his physical needs and provide moral training and discipline. They would not conduct a Bible study directly with the child, with him participating. Yet this does not mean that he would not be required to sit in on the family study. And they might direct attention to parts of the Bible or Christian publications that contain counsel he needs.w81 9/15 If a Relative is Disfellowshipped p 28
What if a minor who lives with his parents gets involved in serious wrongdoing and because of his unrepentant attitude is expelled from the congregation? Since the child lives with his parents, they are still responsible for instructing and disciplining him in harmony with God’s Word. How can this be done?—Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17It may be possible—indeed, it would be best—to give such instruction during a private study of the Bible. A parent must look beyond the child’s hardened attitude and try to see what is in his heart. What is the whole range of his spiritual sickness? (Proverbs 20:5) Can the tender part of his heart by reached? What scriptures can be used effectively? . . . Yes, parents can do more than simply tell their offspring not to get involved in wrongdoing again. They can try to initiate and nurture the healing process.w2001 10/1 How Can You Help a “Prodigal” Child? p 16
Is this a sign of a kinder, gentler Watchtower Society? Perhaps soon these gestures to initiate and nurture the healing process will extend to disfellowshipped adults as well.
Ginny
For the person I met in chat on Sunday night:
You may also want to read the thread, "Report on meeting with PO," started by Freeman. He presents some excellent points in regard the practice of disfellowshipping and shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=15594&site=3
Ginny
You know.......you are so absolutely stifled in the mindset of what the Watchtower believes and equate everything what the scriptures thus teaches in absolute similarity. What we were talking about is that there is no scriptural proof whatsoever that people should be disfellowshipped. Scriptural proof, not watchtower directives....
Disassociating oneself from the WT is no reason why that person should also be viewed as disfellowshipped. Watchtower doctrine...: yes, Biblical doctrine?....Absolutely NOT...and that's the point we wanted to establish in this post....
It's easy to brand someone an apostate if he/she has different viewpoints on how the scripture should be applied......
If all witnesses would have the same spiritual composure as Ray Franz had, then the Organization would practically be flawless and devoid of all apostate leanings and false prophesies alltogether.... A bold statement? Perhaps, but it's a true statement nevertheless....
:*) Richie
