Is it Biblical to Shun??

by charlie 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  waiting

  xandit, no I didn't.

  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.--Matt.18:15-17 (NWT)

  If we were going to take that scripture quite literally, then we're in a different ballgame. Gentiles were treated like dogs by the Jews, even kindly Jesus referred to them as "little dogs." Remember the Good Samatarian? He took care of a Gentile, the Jews left him to die. Are you suggesting going back to the way jw's used to be? If a df'd person car was broken down on the road - pass the dog by? None of your concern? Tax collectors were considered as hated as theives - political hand of the Romans.

  If it's quite literal, then Jesus "new law of love" was terribly lacking - love only within the cong. - hate, racism and bigotry to all who are not or who leave the congregation. Not a pretty rendering of your interpretation of this scripture. I think an appropriate view of cleanliness within the congregation is to be found, but not in shunning, especially within families.

  I don't wish to be that literal - else we wouldn't be talking with each other, now would we?

  waiting
• 

  Sassenach

  Waiting,

  I have a nelson's study bible. Their explanation of the above scripture you quote, is that the consequences of leaving the congregation was to be extremely painful for the "offender". So, the jehovah's witnesses do have a biblical basis for their policy.

  I don't believe that the statement is a contradiction. If he had said "treat them like lepers", the audience would understand the connotation. The fact that Jesus himself healed the lepers, wouldn't change the point he was making.

  I do think there is a biblical basis for shunning, however, since I do not believe that Jesus has arrived to gather his sheep into one fold, shunning amounts to beating the other servants. There is no "congregation" to expel them from.

  Sass

  Edited by - Sassenach on 20 January 2001 17:55:43
• 

  waiting

  Hey Sass,

  I don't believe that the statement is a contradiction.

  I don't see a contradiction either. The choice of the religious teachings is whether to take Jesus' words literally - to the extreme that Jews practiced bigotry & racism - or we take them as a guideline - and find some sort of medium point. And, btw, if we take Jesus' words quite literally - he would seem to be advocating hatred, bigotry, and racism for any who decided not to be Christians. Would that be somewhat like God killing all who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses at Armageddon?

  If we take Jesus' words as a guideline - then it behooves the person reading to interprete the message. Quite a few words can be used for what Jesus was talking about: shunning, expelling, kicking out, hating, "Godly hate," not talking, disciplining, disfellowshipping, disassociation, treating like strangers, not having spiritual fellowship. And a few different implementation ideas - inside the congregation, at work, at home, against children, against parents.

  I think an appropriate view of cleanliness within the congregation is to be found, but not in shunning, especially within families. - waiting

  To my knowledge, Jesus did not include or exclude the love within families. Silence. Imo, the WTBTS and other religions who use shunning in this manner are going further than the scriptures, even a literal translation.

  I have a nelson's study bible. Their explanation of the above scripture you quote, is that the consequences of leaving the congregation was to be extrememly painful for the "offender".

  Again, Nelson's interpretation, which is not quoted here. What constitutes "extreme pain for the offender"? What constitutes an offender? I'm not totally against shunning - I understand the concept of keeping an organization clean. But the concept is still interpretation of words.

  waiting

  Edited by - waiting on 20 January 2001 17:1:34
• 

  Xandit

  waiting you're terminology is rather perjorative. Clearly Jesus was saying that unrepentant, continuing sinners should be expelled from the congregation and that contact should restricted to only that which was absolutely necessary. Racism, bigotry and hatred don't enter into it, it's a matter of actions not attitudes.
• 

  Xandit

  If Jesus instructions were so squishy as to be meaningless, why did he use those particular expressions? Why not say, throw them out of the congregation and then treat them as you wish?

  Edited by - Xandit on 21 January 2001 22:40:16
• 

  Sassenach

  Waiting,

  I'm sorry I didn't quote the Nelson's source. I was being lazy. Here it is.

  Matt 18:15-17 Jesus teaches His disciples about the process of restoring an erring believer. ….the church then is to do everything possible to convince the believer who has sinned to be reconciled or to right the wrong. If the erring one will not respond, that person is to be cut off from the fellowship. Such a loss would be extremely painful to the offender.

  They don't elaborate as to what constitutes extreme pain.

  I do not take the bible literally, but prefer to understand it in terms of its cultural and historical context. Most of what I have read on the subject agrees that the first century christians practiced shunning.

  John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

  to look upon him as the Jews did one that disregarded both private reproof by a man's self, and that which was in the presence of one or two more, (twxp rbx) , "a worthless friend", or neighbour; as a Gentile, with whom the Jews had neither religious nor civil conversation; and a "publican", or as Munster's Hebrew Gospel reads it, (hrbe leb) "a notorious sinner", as a publican was accounted: hence such are often joined together, and with whom the Jews might not eat, nor keep any friendly and familiar acquaintance: and so such that have been privately admonished and publicly rebuked, without success,
  their company is to be shunned, and intimate friendship with them to be avoided.

  Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

  If he neglect to hear the church, if he slight the admonition, and will neither be ashamed of his faults, nor amend them, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and publican; let him be cast out of the communion of the church, secluded from special ordinances, degraded from the dignity of a church member, let him be put under disgrace, and let the members of the society be warned to withdraw from him, that he may be ashamed of his sin, and they may not be infected by it, or made chargeable with it.

  (1cor.5-11, 2 thess. 3:6, 14, 15)

  I prefer your undersanding of Jesus' statement, but what I have read proves otherwise, at least for me.

  While I agree that the bible itself encourages shunning, I'm not completely convinced that it is the word of God. So, in my opinion, shunning is no more appropriate than a good wheeling.

  Edited by - Sassenach on 21 January 2001 2:8:29
• 

  thinkers wife

  I think the scripture that grabbed my attention was the one that said "quit mixing in company with ANYONE CALLED A BROTHER". 1 Cor.5:11
  Anyone who disassociates themselves, obviously does not want to known as a Witness anymore.
  So in view of this scripture as well as the statement from the Flock book, this scripture would not apply to anyone in this position. It negates applying any of the rest of the scriptures used to support not associating with these ones.
  TW
• 

  Frenchy

  From The Holman Bible Dictionary.
  From the Holman Bible Dictionary: “Christians were frequently subject to expulsion, which was punishment for blasphemy or for straying from the tradition of Moses (Luke 6:22; John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Many early Christians thus endured excommunication from the worship place of their fathers to be Christians. The apostles practiced excommunication based on the binding and loosing authority Jesus gave to them (John 20:23; Matt. 18:18)…They excommunicated church members for heresy (Gal. 1:8) for gross, deliberate sin (1 Cor. 5; 2 John 7) and perhaps for falling away from church belief and practice (Heb. 6:4-8). The purpose was to purify the church and to encourage offenders to repent (1 Cor. 5:5-6; 2 Cor. 2:6-10; 2 Thess. 3:15). Punishment ranged in scope from limited ostracism to permanent exclusion and may even have included some form of physical punishment if the church continued synagogue practice (Luke 4:28-30; John 8:2-11; Acts 5:1-5; 7:58). New Testament terms for excommunication include: being delivered to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20); anathema or cursed and cut off from God (Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8). The New Testament churches apparently used excommunication as a means of redemptive discipline....In its broadest sense, excommunication now means denial of sacraments, congregational worship, or social contact of any kind. Excommunication is practiced in this manner by both Protestant and Catholic churches. However, the term itself is used mainly in the Catholic church and usually indicates the permanent ban. Lesser punishments are called censures.”
  ------
  The subject is not a simple one as the next reference points out in its discussion of "Excommunication"
  International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
  It is doubtful whether an express prescription of excommunication is found in our Lord’s words (Mt 18:15-19). The offense and the penalty also seem purely personal: “And if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican,” out of the pale of association and converse. Yet the next verse might imply that the church also is to act: “Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” etc. But this latter, like Mt 16:19, seems to refer to the general enunciations of principles and policies rather than to specific ecclesiastical enactments. On the whole, Jesus seems here to be laying down the principle of dignified personal avoidance of the obstinate offender, rather than prescribing ecclesiastical action"
  The same work goes on to say: ". Still, personal avoidance may logically correspond in proper cases to excommunication by the church. 2 Thess 3:14: “Note that man, that ye have no company with him”; Tit 3:10: “A factious man … avoid” (American Revised Version margin); 2 Jn 1:10: “Receive him not into your house,” etc., all inculcate discreet and faithful avoidance but not necessarily excommunication, though that might come to be the logical result. Paul’s “anathemas” are not to be understood as excommunications, since the first is for an offense no ecclesiastical tribunal
  could well investigate: 1 Cor 16:22, “If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema”; the second touches Paul’s deep relationship to his Lord: Rom 9:3, “I myself … anathema from Christ”; while the third would subject the apostle or an angel to ecclesiastical censure: Gal 1:8, 9, “Though we, or an angel … let him be anathema.” --end of quote. Yet it goes on to state:
  "Clear, specific instances of excommunication or directions regarding it,
  however, are found in the Pauline and Johannine writings. In the case of the
  incestuous man (1 Cor 5:1-12), at the instance of the apostle (“I verily, being
  absent in body but present in spirit”), the church, in a formal meeting (“In the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together”), carrying out the apostle’s desire and will (“and my spirit”), and using the power and authority conferred by Christ (“and with the power of our Lord Jesus”), formally cut off the offender from its fellowship, consigning (relinquishing?) him to the power of the prince of this world (“to deliver such a one unto Satan”). Further, such action is enjoined in other cases: “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.” 2 Cor 2:5-11 probably refers to the same case, terminated by the repentance and restoration of the offender. ‘Delivering over to Satan’ must also include some physical ill, perhaps culminating in death; as with Simon Magus (Acts 8:20), Elymas (Acts 13:11), Ananias (Acts 5:5). 1 Tim 1:20: “Hymenaeus and Alexander … that they might be taught not to blaspheme,” is a similar case of excommunication accompanied by judicial and disciplinary physical ill. In 3 Jn 1:9, 10 we have a case of excommunication by a faction in control: “Diotrephes … neither doth he himself receive … and them that would he … casteth out of the church.” --End of Quote.
  So this reference definitely sees this excommunicating and subsequent shunning as a practice of the first century Christians. It closes the article with the following comments:
  "Excommunication in the New Testament church was not a fully developed
  system. The New Testament does not clearly define its causes, methods, scope or duration. It seems to have been incurred by heretical teaching (1 Tim 1:20) or by factiousness (Tit 3:10 (?)); but the most of the clear undoubted cases in the New Testament are for immoral or un-Christian conduct (1 Cor 5:1, 11, 13; perhaps also 1 Tim 1:20). It separated from church fellowship but not necessarily from the love and care of the church (2 Thess 3:15 (?)). It excluded from church privileges, and often, perhaps usually, perhaps always, from social intercourse (1 Cor 5:11). When pronounced by the apostle it might be accompanied by miraculous and punitive or disciplinary physical consequences (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20). It was the act of the local church, either with (1 Cor 5:4) or without (1 Cor 5:13; 3 Jn 1:10) the concurrence of an apostle. It might possibly be pronounced by an apostle alone (1 Tim 1:20), but perhaps not without the concurrence and as the mouthpiece of the church. Its purpose was the amendment of the offender: “That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:5); and the preservative purification of the church: “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened” (1 Cor 5:7). It might, as appears, be terminated by repentance and restoration (2 Cor 2:5-11). It was not a complex and rigid ecclesiastical engine, held in terrorem over the soul, but the last resort of faithful love, over which hope and prayer still hovered." End of Quote.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  waiting

  hey xandit,

  There is a wide ocean between squimish and finding a middle ground on the matter of keeping the congregation clean. And that is interpretation at it's finest. The WTS has "tacked" far and wide on this and other subjects. The Almish practice shunning, as the commentaries quoted above agree that some other religions do also.

  It would come down to how a person interpretes Jesus' words. You do not agree with the Beacon interpretation, I do not agree with the WTS interpretation. I have lived the WTS interpretation having a first husband df'd. When the elders df'd him - I & my 3 children were shunned by the congregation and friends right along with him. The "friends" were so afraid of "overstepping" what the Society had said - they preferred to err on the side of coldness rather than the side of love. I lost almost all association - and I had done no wrong. My children were young & didn't understand why we had no "friends" anymore. The friends were interpretating further what the WTS interpretated from the Scriptures. It was cruel - beyond squimish. That is the reality of shunning to families.

  I couldn't talk about spiritual things to my husband anymore. He used that as an excuse to get drunk and laid while I was being theocratic and lugging my 3 kids to assemblies (after I cleaned other persons houses to scrap enough money together). We had lost at least one of our common grounds of communication - and we didn't have that many to spare. What we experienced in our home did not help to keep the congregation clean - it just hurt our family.

  My daughter was df'd, just had discovered (and my brother acknowledged it shortly thereafter to me and his wife) that she had been made to have oral sex with him from the ages of 6-9. She remembered a ms in another cong. sexually abusing her around the same age. His own daughter came forward, in writing, telling of the years on incest with the ms. Nothing was done to the ms. My daughter was df'd, along with the other young woman - they had sinned later, no excuses or counseling was offered. My daughter was spiralling into depression, lost her husband, everything. I kept contact with her - I could not accept the squimish fear of suicide. The elders parting words to this beautiful young woman? "We hope you don't go off the deep end." They never spoke, or called upon her again.

  I don't agree with the reality of the repercussions of disfellowshipping. I have lived them - they are cruel, not squimish.
  Again, I understand the cong. should be kept clean if all possible. Remove the person from the congregation - if they're spiritual, shouldn't that cause enough "extreme pain?" Do we have to corral a suicide watch for them? Do we have to cause extreme pain to their families for the rest of their lives? Do we have to be that cruel?

  If the person is not spiritual - then he is out of the congregation. If he wants back in - he has that freedom. I believe that is the middle ground, after counseling and help repreatedly extended.

  Perhaps all this crap goes back to the arguments for/against corporal punishment. Even the WTS was dumb enough to put into print that it's against the law for them to kill apostates, like the jews used to under the Mosaic law. In many persons minds, negative discipline must still be exercised. Positive reinforcement is not enough. I understand the argument with children, I swatted a lot of butts in my time with my hand.

  But as I swatted, I know a sister who knew how to find "just the right thin, strong branch from a tree." She told me "her secret" - try to get a green one - would not snap on the backs of their legs and butts. She proudly said she drew blood up and down the backs of her kids legs - they knew she was the boss. I told her I disagreed, she just shrugged and quoted scripture to me.

  We both interpreted "spare the rod, spoil the child." We just didn't agree with the reality on how to put the interpretation into reality. Btw, neither her nor my kids are in the org. My kids all went onto college, & further. Her's didn't graduate high school.

  I just do not agree with you on the WTS interpretation, xandit.

  waiting

  Edited by - waiting on 21 January 2001 11:51:53
• 

  Frenchy

  This is clearly a touchy subject because of the mental anguish that is the result of such an action. (Disfellowshipping and subsequent shunning) As much as many of us disagree with the practice, it does appear from reference works that shunning was indeed practiced. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians pretty well establishes this in the eyes of the experts.
  The words of a previously quoted authority rings out a loud and clear warning to the contemporary congregation: ”The New Testament does not clearly define its causes, methods, scope or duration”. Without this all important knowledge of exactly how this was accomplished one would necessarily have need of great caution when treading upon this very uncertain ground. There are so many factors that must be accounted for in view of the unique status and nature of the first century congregation.
  It is almost amusing how some churches (WTBS included) toot their horn in declaring how closely they parallel the first century congregational arrangement. To this absurd claim I cry out, “Oh, yeah, how about a couple of resurrections from the dead, then.” Or even so much as surviving the imbibing of poisons and the bites of vipers or miraculous healings (all of which I would like to verify personally!). The truth of the matter is that there does not exist today an entity possessed of all the qualities and amazing abilities attributed to that unique group of Christians. If we take the Bible at its word then we must acknowledge that God’s Holy Spirit was working very powerfully with that small group of believers in a mighty way. Therefore we cannot discount that all pervading force in ALL its actions and activities.
  We must acknowledge that we do not know to what extent the Holy Spirit was DIRECTLY involved in these cases of disfellowshipping. We must remember that in the OT priests used the casting of lots to determine Jehovah’s mind on a matter. What church today would resort to such a thing? And what of the account in Acts, chapter 5, of Ananias and his wife who were struck dead for deception before the congregation? Where is the modern day parallel for this? What group has that power today to discern the heart and call down death from heaven upon an individual? So the modern day congregations pick and choose among the many practices of the early congregation as to what they will do and not do and then point to Scripture for justification and ignore those passages which they choose to pretend do not exist or worse still which are conveniently explained away.
  Those who stand before the congregations would do well to humble themselves and consider the implications of the rules that they formulate for those who congregate to worship God. They would do well to lean to heed Jesus’ words at Matt 9:13 as he quoted Hosea 6:6: Go, then, and learn what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.” Mercy does not mean the toleration of evil and I am in no way suggesting that this be done. There is a more humane manner of dealing with individuals than they way that it is presently being done by the WTBS. One does not necessarily have to pass judgment upon an individual to make it clear that that person’s conduct is unacceptable to him. This becomes very evident when individuals are judged for non-acceptance of doctrinal matters when, in time, the doctrines change and the person is still ‘out’ for a position once condemned but now accepted. How does one deal with that? How does one reasonably adopt an attitude that God approved of the ousting of an individual that had the correct viewpoint? Since when does God punish one for being right? For knowing the truth?
  So now we see what is really happening in the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses today. Expulsion is not for non-compliance with God’s standards and laws but rather for non-compliance with the rules of the organization. However, the two are one and the same in the R&F of JW’s. It is this failure to differentiate between the two that keeps the multitude from rebelling against such an absurd practice.
  In my opinion if the matter of disfellowshipping and shunning is to be argued it is to be argued on the basis of: What can a person be disfellowshipped for? What grounds are sufficient for disfellowshipping? To what extent is shunning to be carried out? For how long? Should there be any penalties imposed upon members of the congregation for non-compliance? Of course the answers would have to be from Scripture. Failure to find specific Scriptural references would suggest that the congregation abstain from making hard and fast rules on the subject inasmuch as this would clearly violate the principle at 1 Cor 4:6 “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” A thought echoed in 2 John 9.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-