Yes, shunning is an act of revenge, as well as a desire to punish anyone who questions the authority of the GB members. Like so many of their doctrines, it's twisted to say something other than it's original meaning.
The primary scripture the Society uses for justification in this doctrine is found in 1 Corinthians 5:11 which says:
"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."
The scripture cited above in 1 Corinthians is clear that a person with whom the congregation should not mix company is one who is:
- "called a brother" (that is, one who professes to be a member of the congregation); and those who:
- practicing fornication, greed, idiolatry, reviling (insulting), habitual drunkenness, and/or extortion (theft).
What comes into play here are the customs of fellowship and worship practiced by first-century Jews and Christians (keeping in mind that Jesus and his apostles were Jews.) They lived according to the Jewish lifestyle and customs of their day. Jesus taught in the synagogues, kept the Jewish holidays and lived the life of a Jew; He was also called "Rabbi." Matt.26:25; 26:49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:25; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8
There were two kinds of association for religious worship amongst first century Jews:
- The public meetings, such as those at the temple and in the synagogues which anyone was allowed to attend.
- The intimate private gatherings of the different sects (in Judaism for example, there were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes). Christians and Jews participated in both. Since the Christians at that time did not have a public meeting place that they could call their own, they used both the Synagogues and also met in private homes, usually over a special meal with prayer.
Christians were instructed to "greet" one another with a kiss. (Rom.16:16; 1.Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; Ti.3:15; 1Pet.5:14) When Paul sent his "greetings" in a letter to the Christians in Thessalonica, he asked that the brothers be greeted with a "holy kiss" on his behalf. This was a custom both amongst the Jews and Christians of the first century, it had a special significance of close companionship amongst those who were related either by blood or by their faith.
Clearly, Paul did instruct Christians to expel from the congregation fellowship those who was purposely practicing willful sin. The expulsion would naturally exclude them from being greeted by the identifying "holy kiss," as well as not being allowed to share in meetings and the meals for Christian worship and prayer.
However, Paul's instruction did not prohibit normal conversation or witnessing to former members. Nor were the guilty party barred from attending worship in the temple or the synagogues. Jesus, the apostles and Paul, along with the rest of the Jews, worshiped God both publicly in the temple and synagogues, and privately with small groups in various homes. (Acts 5:42) It was from the private Christian fellowship for worship that sinners were excluded.
What of the scripture that says: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."
The above scripture is not talking about those who had been expelled from the Christian congregation. If you read verse 10 it is clear that it is talking about someone who does not "acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."
This included Jews that rejected Jesus and people of the nations worshipping other Gods. Yet the Watchtower stance is to apply this only to Jehovah's Witnesses. The meaning of the phrase "never receive him into YOUR homes" should be understood in the context of the hospitality of first century Jerusalem. Since Christians held congregation meetings in their homes John possibly felt that inviting a denier of Christ into a home could be viewed as sharing worship with non-Christians. Likewise the term to never "say a greeting" to him needs to be understood in light of first century practice.
The Watchtower 1988 May 15 p.27 says: "John here used khai´ro, which was a greeting like "good day" or "hello." (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9) He did not use aAspa´zoAmai (as in verse 13), which means "to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome" and may have implied a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) So the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even "hello" to such ones."
This article claims the word khai'ro is used to forbid a simple greeting, instead of aspa'zo mai which means a more affectionate embrace, enfolding in the arms, kiss, greeting or welcome. Of course, the average Witness is going to take this at face value, which is unfortunate because Strong's Concordance defines the two words as just the opposite of what this Watchtower is claiming:
- 5463 chairo{khah'-ee-ro} 1) to rejoice, be glad 2) to rejoice exceedingly 3) to be well, thrive 4) in salutations, hail! 5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute
- A783 aspasmos {as-pas-mos'} 1) a salutation, either oral or written
By applying the word khai'ro to the quote at 2 John 11, it is clear that the early Christian congregation did not completely ignore such ones. While they would not have 'greeted them with a holy kiss' or display an overly zealous greeting, it is obvious that they would have greeted the person in a courteous manner.
If the scripture at 2 John 10 were observed literally by Jehovah's Witnesses, they would be obliged to never to speak to anyone other than another Witness in good standing. Yet Witnesses work with people with various backgrounds including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists.....none of whom believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Why are they allowed to speak with these people, yet are obliged to shun life long friends and even family members when they get disfellowshipped?
How did Jesus say one expelled from congregation should be treated? Far from cutting the person off completely, Jesus encouraged kindness:
Matt.18:15-17 says: "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 ['Gentile' in some translations] and as a tax collector."
The instruction was to bring up the matter of sin first between the two individuals alone. If the sinner repented, there was no need to carry the matter further. If the sinner was not repentant, then one or two others should be sought for witnesses. If the sinner remained unrepentant, only then, as a last resort, should it be brought before the entire congregation (not privately with the "elders").
If, after all that, the person was still would not listen, he should then be treated the same as Gentiles and tax collectors. In other words, Christians were to treat former members just like anyone else who was not a member of the congregation. To be treated like a "man of the nations" (which is to say, a Gentile or foreigner) was far from being shunned. Jewish people worked with, associated with, transacted business with, and preached to Gentiles. As for "tax collectors," Jesus ate and associated with them. Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were not popular, but they were not shunned.
"Next, while passing along from there, Jesus caught sight of a man named Matthew seated at the tax office, and he said to him: "Be my follower." Thereupon he did rise up and follow him. Later, while he was reclining at the table in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began reclining with Jesus and his disciples. But on seeing this the Pharisees began to say to his disciples: "Why is it that your teacher eats with tax collectors and sinners?" Hearing [them], he said: "Persons in health do not need a physician, but the ailing do. Go, then, and learn what this means, 'I want mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners."
The ironic thing about the Organizations' view of disfellowshipping, is that they do not 'practice what they preach'. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not disfellowship greedy persons. They often do not disfellowship people who regularly get drunk unless their conduct becomes so outrageous and publicly-known as to bring reproach upon Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not disfellowship people for many of the things which they themselves class as "idolatry" (for example: materialism, worshipping an organization, etc.).
On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses do disfellowship and shun people for:
- Celebrating a birthday, Christmas, Easter, or other secular holidays (even though the founder of the religion, Charles Russell saw no problem with celebrating such days);
- Discussing personal views of the scriptures with anyone if your viewpoint differs from with the Governing Body says is 'truth'
- Independent study and discussion of the Bible that brings Watchtower doctrine into question (even though the scriptures specifically tell Christians to "make sure of all things".
- possession of literature written by former members.
- having a meal with a former member, even if the former member professes to be a Christian and was not disfellowshipped for fornication, greed, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, or extortion.
- Going public with evidence that the Organization has covered up acts of pedophilia over the years, like in Barbara Anderson's case;
- attending a service of any other church or religious organization.
- authorizing a blood transfusion, even to save the life of a child.
There is no scripture basis for mandating that Christians must totally shun former members (that is, have no communication or conversation with them). The instruction is to expel them from the congregation and treat them like anyone else who is not a member. More specifically, there is no scripture to support shunning of one's own relatives--parents, children and siblings. In fact, the scriptures specifically says that it is a Christian's duty to provide "for his relatives". They way we know that this is speaking of those outside his immediate family is because the scripture defines both immediate family members as well as "relatives" which would obviously mean family members who were not "immediate":
"...If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .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. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."
1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 is very specific as to who these words apply to. This advice is to be applied to someone "called a brother" who is a wrongdoer. There is no evidence that it is telling you to avoid this person when they are no longer recognized as a Jehovah's Witness. As we have already discussed, once a person was 'removed' from the congregation, they were to be treated "as a man of the nations" or as "a tax-collector". It should also be noted that Paul did not insist that every single Christian participate in the shunning. Later he wrote that the "majority" participate in the rebuke, showing that some in the congregation may choose not to show rebuke to the person (obviously without fear of being called before a Judicial Committee and disfellowshipped themselves).
"Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extent-not to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man..."
Ironically, the Organization likes to use the example of Diotrephes as: "A man mentioned by the apostle John in his letter to Gaius. In addition to being ambitious, proud, disrespectful of apostolic authority, rebellious, and inhospitable, Diotrephes tried to hinder those desiring to show hospitality to the brothers and to expel these from the congregation". So basically Diotrephes was being reprimanded for attempting to disfellowship "those desiring to show hospitality to the brothers" by expelling them "from the congregation"---a situation reminiscant of many Witnesses who have tried to show compassion to disfellowshipped ones. In other words, the Governing Body members are no better than what Diotrephes was.
A comparison between how the Bible says to treat wrongdoers with how the Watchtower enforces disfellowshipping shows the Organization has gone way "beyond the scriptures", using it as a method for absolute control over its members. One of Jesus' greatest commands was to show love to one's brother and to one's neighbour (Luke 10:27). The doctrine on disfellowshipping puts serious question marks over any claim of love that Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to make, especially as we have seen that disfellowshipping today in the Organization, was not practiced in Jesus' day.
