Private organizations should have the right to boot members for whatever reason they see fit.
Is There A Sin That Is Justifiably, For Excommunication Or Shunning?
by AvocadoJake 14 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Mickey mouse
Private organizations should have the right to boot members for whatever reason they see fit.
I agree with this, however, they do not have the right to tell people not to speak with/associate with that person.
-
GLTirebiter
It reasonable to "boot" somebody from the organization, provided it is done in a fair, evenhanded way. But WT disfellowshipping goes far beyond mere removal. It includes encouraging members to cause emotional pain to those in the organization's bad graces, and effectively slandering them with a public announcement at a meeting where the accused is likely to be present. The literal wording of the announcement is innocuous ("Tirebiter is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"--not that I ever was!). But the sinister connotation those words have to those hearing them ("Apostate! Fornicator! Bad Association!") conveys a different meaning--a case of loaded language.
The WT policy on disfellowshipping has not always been so extreme. Aussie Oz has documented the history of how this policy has changed through the years, which you can read at freeminds.
-
ABibleStudent
No organization should promote shunning or marking individuals for any reason by their members. Private organizations that do not receive tax exempt status and/or government assistance should be able to deny/revoke membership to people for any reason. Private organizations that receive tax exempt status and/or government assistance should not be able to deny/revoke membership to people without uniformily applied rules and a transparent and fair process. No non-law enforcement organization should be allowed to subvert law enforcement and the civil/criminal prosecution processes.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
IMHO
There is (or should be) a distinction between Excommunication and Shunning.
Shunning should be a personal decision as discussed earlier. i.e. if a smoker comes to your house and refuses to stop you don't invite them back.
By extension no one should be should be disfellowshipped by the congregation as they cannot read the heart. The elders cannot truly see whether one is repentant.
Why would one practice something that is wrong but still want to be a JW. One is known as a JW be their 'works'. It's often said that if one is not 'witnessing' then they are not a JW. When a 'new one' wishes to begin 'field service' they have to be approved so it is just that approval that should be revoked, nothing more, nothing less. When approved one is announced as an Unbaptized Publisher so the equivilent announcement would be that one is no longer a publisher.
A person can come in off the street at the watchtower study and put their hand up to comment, so why should even commenting be restricted. If their comment is totally out-of-line they will not be called on again.
If one chooses to practice whatever 'sin' they choose deliberately then they are making the choice of not wishing to be a JW and 1 Cor 15:33 would apply as a personal decision. If however, the 'sin' is due to weakness, imperfection, a momentary lack of judgement, or whatever and that one continues to attend meetings, and accept the help they may need. Then why should they be disfellowshipped.
In answer to previous posters there is no 'sin' that warrants disfellowshipping as it is not (supposed to be) a punishment. It is only warranted if one is deemed to be unrepentent. If one is not repentent why would they even agree to a Judicial Commitee.
To reitarate a point made earlier. We all choose our own associates, we are even warned to be 'careful' of our assoications even within the congregation. So why do we need to be TOLD to shun someone. Particularly if that one is not practicing sin but merely 'fell short' and needs and wants help.