Is it Biblical to Shun??

by charlie 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DFshipped

  Wow.
  This is such a simple subject, and has caused such complicated debate.
  The bible clearly upholds the non-association with unrepentant sinners.
  A simple review of the WT articles on this subject clears away all the questions raised by these posts.
• 

  mommy

  A simple review of the WT articles on this subject clears away all the questions raised by these posts.

  
  This is an organizations VIEW if it is coming from the watchtower!
  My mother tried to use the analogy of: If two of my neighbors had different opinions on the way I raise my children "who is right?"She asked me "how will we find out what the truth is, if you are a good mom or not"
  My answer to her? Neither would be truth. They both would be opinions, based on their own parenting tequniques.
  Same is true with ALL religions and their interpratations of the bible. If you beleive ALL they teach then you may live your life in that way. But IMHO you may not critisize others for their views.
  Too many people are hurt with the practise of shunning, far more that REJOICE that is was done to them. I personally would like to know the statistics on how many were df then returned, happier and a better person for it. Does anyone have these? It would be interesting to see.
  wendy
• 

  waiting

  Hello DFshipped,

  Nice to meet you. From your name, are we to assume that you are disfellowshipped? Whatever, you're welcome here. I am interested in your three statements:

  This is such a simple subject, and has caused such complicated debate.

  The bible clearly upholds the non-association with unrepentant sinners.

  A simple review of the WT articles on this subject clears away all the questions raised by these posts.

  Please be so kind to show from scripture the clear, simple and true way to shun - in the congregation, and proof that we are to shun within families at all times, except if there is "family business" to take care of. Please also show how far we should take this shunning. How far we should act like first century listeners of Jesus and exactly what Jesus meant by his words.

  Please do not show from the WTS study articles - it is their interpretation. As the WTS taught us to tell others, "We follow Bible standards." Please prove from "Bible standards only.

  waiting
• 

  Xandit

  If it were just the Wt view on this matter then there might be some point to disagreeing with what seems to be pretty clear in the scriptures, however, it's not just the Wt. Every reputable authority that I know of holds pretty similar views, enough certainly to establish the basic principles. Some clearly do not want to accept that, so be it. I think we've beaten this one about to death so lets move on.
• 

  thinkers wife

  Is anyone paying attention? The scripture clearly says "anyone called a brother". If you are disassociated or disfellowshipped, you are clearly not calling yourself a brother. This scripture clearly does not apply to one's in such a position.
  TW
• 

  waiting

  hey xandit,

  certainly to establish the basic principles

  I agree - from corporal punishment, extreme pain, emotional anguish in the family, to the basic principle of removing the sinner from the congregation.

  Some clearly do not want to accept that

  The basic principle of keeping the congregation clean - and the acceptance of that - can even be seen over at H20, that's what the heated discussion against the WTS was about - remove pedophiles from the congregation - report them to the police, even if the law says you don't have to. Protect the children of the congregation.

  The discussion here was on the interpretation of Jesus' words. Exactly how and how severely is removal from the congregation to be carried out? Exactly how far should we go in trying to be like the first century Christians, Jews and Gentiles? Should we return to the spirit of hatred, bigotry and racism?

  Each dictionary and authority quoted puts a different spin on it - while all agreed that excommunication from the congregation is founded in the scriptures - as we've all pointed out.

  Since this area is complicated because it does cause such pain to families, friends, and individuals, I don't think we're beating a dead horse. We just don't agree in our interpretation of other people's interpretations of Jesus' words and how they were exactly carried out by the fist century Christians - we don't know the severity of the pain they felt Godly justified in causing in the name of love.

  As Frenchy pointed out, if we're going to be literal - then who decides on how literal? Same with the blood policy and corporal punishment of children, wives. There is a wide spectrum of interpretation of the Bible, always has been.

  Much pain, even death, has been done in the name of Jesus and Jehovah. Of course, his most famous words were "Love your God and love your neighbor." That is open for interpretation also.

  Hey Sass,

  Thanks for the quotes from your Bible dictionaries. I have Strong's, and looked up "excommunication." Disciplinary exclusion from church fellowship..."Hand this man over to Satan" seems to mean casting out of the church into the world that lies in the power of the wicked one. The object of excommunication is the good of the offender and the moral well-being of the sound members. Its subjects are those guilty of heresy or great immorality. It is inflicted by the church and its representative ministers. Paul's inspired words give no warrant for uninspired ministers claiming the same right to direct the church to excommunicate at will."

  I appreciate your taking the effort to post your Bible commentaries, much thinking to do.

  One point we've all overlooked is what constitutes sin serious enough to be removed from the congregation?

  1 Cor 5:11 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 idolator or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man....Remove the wicked {man} from among yourselves."

  Crisis of Conscience reading is not mentioned, neither smoking, voting, blood takers (previously), speaking truths about the WTS that they don't want us to speak about. It's been brought out before that drunkards, gluttons, gossipers, etc. are in the congregation - they're not disfellowshipped for these things. Why? Too hard to prove. But a book which disagrees with the WTS seen in your house, a cigarette....easy outs.

  Whatever the "proper interpretation and implementation of Jesus' words", guess I'm leaning to the agnostic viewpoint. I just don't know.

  Hey TW

  I think you're right, if a person da's themselves, would it be a proper Biblical interpretation to call them "a brother?" They are just your next door neighbor, husband, son, daughter, etc. They are not heretics, apostates, just not a brother anymore. They have committed no gross sin - why are they shunned, viewed even worse than gross sinners?

  Seems simple to understand, but the questions it raise are glaring, imho.

  waiting

  Edited by - waiting on 22 January 2001 8:31:44