Should People Be Disfellowshipped?

by Frenchy 44 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Frenchy

  A reply I made on another thread prompted me to post this. I was going to do so on the other thread but that was really not the topic and I didn't want to corrupt it by flying off on another tangent.

  I have no problems with disfellowshipping from an organization such as Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't think a person should be allowed to remain within an organization while practicing things that are condemned by that org., things which they, themselves profess not to believe in.

  My objection is to the shunning. If a person wants to live an immoral life, let them. Make an announcement that this person is no longer a JW and then leave it at that. Treat that person like you do all the others that are doing the same thing that he/she is. If the person 'repents' bring him/her back in. What's complicated about that?

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  ashitaka

  I agree, French...who cares about the disfellowshipping....it's the shunning that comes along with it that really affects people.

  When the JW's start acting like human beings again, then I'll let up on them.

  ashi
• 

  Gopher

  Frenchy,

  Your suggestion (treat the person like you do all the others...)makes too much sense! It will never be adopted!

  Ashi, when will JW's EVER start acting like humans with feelings? They're total automatons, as you well know! What would it take to get them "off the dime"?

  GopherWhy shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.
  Mark Twain (1835-1910)
• 

  its_my_life2001ca

  I too agree with disfellowshipping. I was always amazed at stories of people who lived a life of crime yet were still able to benefit from sacraments of the church. They should have been excommunicated because their life bore out that they had know real appreciation for Christian principles. The same goes for the witnesses, if a person openly goes against Bible teachings. However, many who have been disfellowshipped ie for adultery sincerely regret their actions but the mere fact they don't return to meetings is justification to ostracize them. Meeting attendance is no proof of repentance because many people live a double life. Also, some who leave don't do so to pursue an ungodly life , their love for God and his word are still strong and in some ways they have developed a closer bond with him.Just the mere fact they have lost faith in a man made organization is enough for the witnesses to consider them unfit association. I wonder if the shunning was ever abolished , if there would be a huge exodus from the org. as alienation from ones family and friends is more than some people could bear.
• 

  wannahelp

  Hi Frenchy,

  You said:

  "My objection is to the shunning. If a person wants to live an immoral life, let them"

  Why do you think that a person not being a part of the organization equates to leading an immoral life?

  Many Many people that I know lead very moral lives, and are not, nor ever were part of that organization..

  And, as we know from this board itself, there are MANY MANY people here that were at one time part of that organization and for one reason or another left, and are leading moral lives...

  The organization does NOT equate to morality..

  The only think the organization has going for it is making up the minds of about 6 million people, so they don't have to think for themselves!!!

  Oh, and I strongly disagree with shunning.. I don't believe it is either moral or scriptural...
• 

  mommy

  Frenchy,
  I personally have a problem with the DF process. I have no problem with DA because a person chooses themselves to walk away. But to have your life decided by other people who are supposed to be reading if you are repentant. I just do not agree with this. How can they honestly know the difference? I don't feel it is our place to judge others.

  Look how emotional people get when things happen that goes against their own conscience. Not one of us can say we objectively look at all things the same. I don't I have things that send me over the top. And I am not so quick to forgive those things, than I am others.

  So I think the whole DF should be abolished. If the org continues to say that jehovah will sort everything out, and the bad apples will be weeded out. Why are they taking it upon themselves to d othe sorting?
  wendy

  Blind faith can justify anything.~Richard Dawkins
• 

  Joseph Joachim

  Frenchy,

  What you say is right but you're not seeing the problem as JWs do. For them, a person who is out of the religion has no chances of surviving Armaggedon. So what they try to accomplish by shunning is not to show their disapproval on the person's lifestyle but to psychologically coerce the person to go back to the Org. They really think it's the best thing to do, and it's something that fits perfectly with JW mindset. I don't see how this could change, unless they drop their claim of being the only true religion (something unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future).

  JJ
• 

  nytelecom1

  df'ing keeps whe crybabies out of the cong..
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Frenchy: There is no real Biblical basis for DFing. The ONLY example of any congregational action was stated by the Apostle Paul in 1st and then 2nd Corinthians. Paul "recommended" removal of the wicked man who made notorius sin by having sex with his stepmother. But, when it was time to accept the man back, Paul said the the reproof by the "Majority" is sifficient. Evidently, total shunning and total reproof was not practiced among early Christyians, not even at the recommnedation by Paul. It was a matter of conscience.

  I object to DFing by the JWs because they claim to be a Christian organization, but they do not practice Christianity, and DFing is not a Christian practice. If the JWs said they were not Christian, but a secular group, then they could DF all they want. But then, I never would have joined them had they not deceived me about their Christian claims. - Amazing
• 

  GinnyTosken

  Frenchy,

  I agree that if disfellowshipping meant "membership revoked," with no shunning involved, it would be quite a bit more palatable.

  An active JW wandered into chat this past weekend and brought up the subject of disfellowshipping. This person wanted to see scriptural evidence that the JW practice is wrong. When I began reading up on this topic, I realized that it's not so much the basic premise that is flawed--both Jesus and Paul urged followers to distance themselves from unrepentant sinners--but the methods and rules that JWs use to regulate this procedure.

  There are other questions, even with the simple scenario you describe. Who decides when a person's membership should be revoked? Is this a group decision, an individual decision, or a decision made by a secret committee of three elders? Who decides when a person is repentant?

  Here's a link to the discussion we had after the active Jehovah's Witness appeared in chat:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=15500&site=3

  Ginny