Article on disfellowshipping by Mrs C.T.R in 1887 Watchtower

by Aussie Oz 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Aussie Oz

  Cruising through the 1887 WT i came accross this that i found of interest that as far back as 1887 the Wt was sanctioning the act of disfellowshipping. Whether it included the practice of full blown shunning at that time is not eveident in the pages i have looked through yet.

  Watchtower 1887 page 954 ''Discipline in the church''

  Such is part of the painful duty of the present hour. Some

  who once walked with us in the light of truth, clothed in the

  righteousness of Christ imputed to-them “through faith in his

  blood ''have since taken off that robe and appeared in their

  own filthy rags, boldly inviting others to do likewise. While

  it is the duty of the stronger members of the body of

  the Christ to protect the weaker, in every way possible

  against these baneful influences it is their duty to bind the

  offenders and cast them out-in other words, to disfellowship

  them-to show up their true standing, and thus bind them

  hand and foot by putting others on their guard, thus restraining

  their influence upon the church. Sooner or later they

  will either put on the robe or withdraw from the light which

  reveals the filthy rags of their own righteousness.

  Mrs C.T.R
• 

  Aussie Oz

  Any comments on this?

  i found it very interesting that it speaks of disfellowshipping over a hundred years ago

  and that it was an article written by Maria Russell

  do any others?

  oz
• 

  palmtree67

  Interesting, indeed.

  I'm not sure what to make of it, first off. It appears early on, there was an "Agree with us or die!" mentality.

  Need to think on this.

  Thank you, Oz!
• 

  Leolaia

  I don't know the whole context, but my impression is that the Russells had a rather narrow definition of what an apostate is: Mainly someone who rejected Christ, such as one who rejects the ransom. I think Nelson Barbour was one whom Russell thought denied the ransom. For Russell, such a person could no longer be a brother. But I recall reading other statements that with regard to moral sins, it was just to regard such a person as an erring brother, and I know that one did not have to accept Russell's body of teaching in order to be considered a brother. Very different from today. Russell, for instance, taught that the body of Christ was spread throughout and not confined to one particular group; there were spirit-begotten outside of his group (although he claimed primacy of course for his own group).
• 

  NeonMadman

  Despite what the JW's would have you believe, disfellowshipping is not unheard of among the churches of Christendom. Of course, traditional churches don't have elders who act as spiritual policemen, nosing into people's lives for the purpose of finding any excuse to exercise their judicial power, and they don't indulge in the extreme shunning practiced by the JW's. But many churches do address serious issues of sin within their congregations, especially those that become known publicly. A sinner who refuses to repent after the following of the Matthew 18 procedure may well be expelled from the church (usually by a vote of the whole congregation), and it is up to individual members to determine to what extent such action will affect their personal relationships with the individual. The expelled person is not seen as irretrievably lost, but is usually admonished to repent and to return. The expelled person is nearly always denied Communion ("not even eating with such a man") - hence the term "excommunication."

  Russell picked up on this practice and advocated it in his writing - it was very unlike the oppressive system practiced among the JW's today. I believe that the Bible Student groups that still exist also follow this model.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  Thanks for the comments...

  i so far have found no reference to the act of shunning in those days. I think it was probably unthinkable to the Russells and bible students. But it does show, i feel, the seeds grasped by Knorr as grown plants of 'discipline'

  oz
• 

  freydo

  What Pastor Russell Said p 479
  
  Meetings Elders in Court of Inquiry Questions 1916
  
  "Is it proper for the elders to sit at a court of inquiry and cite any supposed to be walking in a disorderly manner to appear before them and explain their conduct?" Or should the Lord's advice at Matt 18:15-18 be followed?
  
  Answer - "I agree with the suggestion of the question that it should be handled in harmony with the Lord's direction in the passage cited. The Lord's word does not authorize any court of the Elders, or anyone else, to become busybodies. THis would be going back to the practices of the Dark Ages during the inquisition; and we would be showing the same spirit as did the inquisitors. The Lord has put the matter in a simple way and we could not improve upon it......We should remember the word of the Lord which says, 'The Lord will judge his people.' If he should need any punishment, we may trust the Lord to give it to him and not take the matter into our own hands. We should have confidence in the Lord. If we can stop the wrong that is as far as we can go. But if the wrong doer should persist in his wrong-doing and not repent, and if the matter should be of sufficient importance, then we are to bring the matter to the attention of the of the Church for correction. We should not bring any small or trifling matter. It is my judgment that 3/4 of the things which are brought to my attention - had better be dropped."

  http://www.ctrussell.us/
• 

  Aussie Oz

  Interesting find Freydo...thankyou

  In Russells mind it would appear that the practice of Judicial committees such as today would be abhorrent. That said, he obviously would support some sort of 'investigation' based on his words...

  " But if the wrong doer should persist in his wrong-doing and not repent, and if the matter should be of sufficient importance, then we are to bring the matter to the attention of the of the Church for correction. We should not bring any small or trifling matter. It is my judgment that 3/4 of the things which are brought to my attention - had better be dropped."

  So long as it was a big enough matter...

  The other posts i have made from the 1800s watchtowers do show an attitude and practice of Disfellowshipping and shunning perhaps in its infancy but definatley there.

  oz
• 

  freydo

  Shalom Oz -

  df'g among Bible Students is very rare and always has been - except for the small remnant who became da judge's dubs

  I only know of one case. And they just went to another ecclesia like nothing ever happened.

  Here's the rest of the quote -

  ".........We should not bring any small or trifling matter before the Church. It is my judgment that three-fourths of the things that are brought to my attention--matters of this kind--had better be dropped; and nothing at all be done with them. However, there might be an exception in case the matter had gone beyond the individual, and had somehow involved the whole congregation. In such event, it might be impossible to deal with the matter in an individual way. Then the Elders might constitute themselves into a Board or Committee, and get one of their number to look into the case and see if the wrong could not be stopped, or adjusted. When the matter gets beyond the individual, we have no advice beyond the Word of God. Let us be careful not to become like Babylon, and hold inquisition and mix ourselves up. The Word of God is our sufficiency, and we should follow it closely and thereby avoid confusion."
• 

  blondie

  I noticed that is signed Mrs. CTR (evidently Russell's wife Maria) who was still an editor of the WT. In that way would it be her opinion not his?

  I have talked to Bible Students and they only hold off scriptural discussion for still associate socially and talk about social and family topics.