Ginny:
Thank you for your gracious words though I hardly see you as a ‘shy, shrinking violet’ but more like a more subdued but infinitely more complex and hardy orchid.
When I said a committee I did mean one made up of ‘elders’ (for lack of a better term for those serving the congregation). The reason I would prefer a committee handling matters such as these is for the benefit of the person accused of the wrongdoing. I would hardly think that the person would want the entire congregation (children?) included in a discussion of a very private and perhaps embarrassing nature. Also, I do not believe that the majority of the congregation would be willing to listen to it in the first place nor would they feel comfortable ‘voting’ on that person’s membership as well. I think that a great many members would not even show up for that meeting.
Now, would the congregation be bound by the decision of the committee? Remember that the person would simply cease to be an official member of the congregation, or as you put it so well: “Without shunning involved, these issues would have more to do with one's membership status than one's personal relationship with God.” Exactly!
The individual would not be shunned. That person’s new status should not affect any of his/her dealings with fellow members of the congregation. There are no restrictions placed upon that individual so the congregation is hardly even aware of the change. The individual is simply no longer an ‘official member’ and is not afforded any of the privileges accorded to members.
Will the meeting be secret or open? The whole idea of the committee meeting is to minimize any damage that might occur to the person’s reputation or status in the community so allowing spectators to come in to gawk would hardly be appropriate, in my opinion. However, I would think that the accused should be allowed to bring anyone they wish to the meeting. It would be their choice.
If the person is df’d, an announcement could be made to the congregation that so and so is no longer a member of the congregation. That would make it official. I would think that it should be left like that. I don’t see the need to give a talk a week or so later on the reason why this person was df’d such as is done in the congregations of JW’s today. This is, in reality, telling everyone what the poor soul did!
This differs considerably from how it’s done today in JW’dom. The biggest and most important difference is, of course, the shunning. As for the meeting itself, presently the accused is not allowed to bring anyone to the meeting unless this person is a witness in his behalf. Although the Society says that a worldly person may testify (or even a responsible child) this is almost always frowned upon and seldom allowed. (The brothers don’t want to air out their dirty laundry in front of ‘the world’) When a person is df’d or publicly reproved an announcement is made just as I suggested above BUT a week or two later a talk is given on the very subject for which the person was disciplined. Now everyone knows why brother so and so was df’d because that talk is given during the service meeting and it does not fit in with the km schedule!
The accused is warned about discussing anything that went on in the meeting. I say let them talk all they want! Why not? What right does anyone have telling someone else not to talk about their own personal business? If Joe wants to talk about Joe’s business, then Joe has a right to do so.
There are two reasons stated as the justification of Df’ing.
1) To protect the congregation
2) To move the sinner to repentance.
This is, as we all know here, a crock of crap. How is the congregation protected? Let’s say the person is a thief. Are there not far more thieves around us everyday than would be found on any given day in a congregational meeting? A fornicator? Same thing. There are fornicators all around which the congregation is free to talk to, study with, and bring to the meetings. Apostates! Ah, there you have it. The members may speak to any member of any religion…except a former member of theirs. Why is that? What is so dangerous about an ex-JW as opposed to a Catholic Priest, or the pastor of any other church, or a well-informed member willing to challenge the doctrines of JW’s. I have met quite a few of the latter and had many an interesting discussion with them. They were far more enlightened, I must admit, than any of my fellow congregation members. BUT…they did not have the inside scoop on things! That, is what is feared.
Now what about moving the sinner to repentance? Is that the job of the congregation or Christ’s? Number two is an admission that this is punitive action. Who, today, has that authority to punish someone for their sins? The action is not to move to repentance but to pressure to conformity to the ‘current revealed truth’ that is being peddled.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
