by YoYoMama 38 Replies latest jw friends
I was wondering today. What if the Witnesses did not have a policy of disfellowshipping those that are apostates. What would the congregations be like? Would there be unity?
I understand many here were DFed for apostasy and are against this policy. We could also go one step forward, what if there would be no disfellowshippings at all, for any reason. What then?
Hello YoYo,
In order to answer such a question a certain groundwork needs to be established so that we are all on the 'same page'. These are some questions I would ask you, the same that I have asked others on previous occasions with similar questions to your own.
1) What is the Bible’s definition of an apostate?
2) What is the WTS definition of an apostate?
3) What is your definition of an apostate?
If the answers to these questions are convergent or divergent perhaps you might comment.
Best regards - HS
edited for spelling errors
I think if there was no 'DFing of apostates', you would not have the anger and frustration you see in the exJW community toward the WT.
If people were free to not be involved with no consequence, then I think that would be fair. You don't have to force people to be the same and think the same to be united in a common goal or interest.
There is a big difference between unity and uniformity. The WT polarizes people and lacks the middleground of tolerance. People who don't want to be JWs and those who do, should be able to co-exist in society and whatever consequences our choices bring, then let God be the judge of us all.
Forcing people to act and think a certain way with such an unethical penalty confuses what motivates people to do what they do and whether they are genuinely loyal to the cause or whether their loyalty and love is just and act and under duress.
Path
That the 'unity' you see is not unity - it's forced uniformness. Speak out of line and "You're outa there!". So just remember that there are MANY JW's who are not there in spirit, but are simply going through the motions so they don't lose their entire social surroundings (friends and family). And MANY who do not see things 'eye-to-eye' with the GB/Elders but just keep their mouths shut for the above reasons.
theyd probably just go their merry way and have the freedom to choose
the religion theyd like to follow without harrassment, and the ones that are left at the halls would be there because they truly want to be and not because they feel duty bound to stay to keep their families, maybe a simplistic ideal but its only my opinion, unless dfing is done away with theres no ways of telling.
nelly
What unity? It's a myth. When we went to the conventions in Poland, we saw for the first time that the organziation does NOT have worldwide unity, that we had been so proud of.
Marilyn (a.k.a. Mulan)
Labelling people "apostates" and teaching people to shun a person all for the sake of publically disagreeing with a Governing Body doctrine is basically teaching and practicing hate. This is creed bigotry plain and simple. Preventing someone from excercising his/her free conscience/religious beliefs.
The Aerian Nation does the same thing except instead they go for the plain and simple race bigotry instead of creed bigotry. Interestingly both the Watchtower and the Aerian Nation use the bible as their basis for their "hatred".
Would there be no "unity" you ask? Check your dictionary. You have the wrong word. I believe your questions should have been - Would there be no "obedience" ("conformity")?
hawk
While many critics disagree with the WTS disfellowshipping over rather trivial deviations from ever-changing doctrines, practically everybody disagree with the shunning that is an integral part of the WTS policies. I doubt so many would really object to a religious' community's right to terminate the church membership for those who do not agree with the central doctrines.
I think it is crucial to keep the issues of disfellowshipping and shunning separate in discussions.
What is ethically repugnant is the emotional blackmail involved in forcing church members to shun even close family and (former) friends who broken church rules or disagree on social or religious issues.
To me, JWs can have their cherished "unity", but there is no moral defence for the hateful way they treat those who dissent.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
Hey Mulan,I have never been to an assembly in Polland.Can you explain a little more?Thanks...OUTLAW
YoYoMama,
: What if the Witnesses did not have a policy of disfellowshipping those that are apostates. What would the congregations be like? Would there be unity?
There COULD be unity, but there would no longer be forced COMFORMITY. Many ex-JWs are united in our desire to help JWs see all sides of their religion, but none of us are forced or force each other to conform to our unique viewpoints or approaches to dealing with that challenge.
Do you see the difference? FORCING people to be a certain way is far different than allowing people to be united in a purpose, while still letting them freely disagree on the details about how to accomplish that purpose.
: I understand many here were DFed for apostasy and are against this policy. We could also go one step forward, what if there would be no disfellowshippings at all, for any reason. What then?
JWs would be finally be following Jesus' example. (It would be about time!) He didn't advocate shunning anyone, not even Judas.
Farkel
"I didn't mean what I meant."
