When Is Disfellowshipping Appropriate?

by Englishman 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  Is the societies policy of shunning unrepentant miscreants scriptural? This is what the NWT has to say:

  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)

  From this it certainly appears that to disfellowship someone who is unrepentant for his sin is, according to Scripture, definitely correct procedure, providing that a personal and private effort has been made to rectify the situation. Note however that if the sinner refuses to listen, then, and only then, is the congregation is to be involved here, no mention of a committee. Also, only once he has ignored the congregation is disfellowshipping deemed appropriate. However, it is important to realise that this simply means that the wrongdoer only reverts to being once more regarded as “a man of the nations”. There is no mention of shunning, ie, pretending that someone does not exist.

  So what about this scripture?: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.--1.Cor. 5:11 (NWT)

  This plainly applies to sinners who insist on remaining in the congregation. Once someone has declared themselves no longer a part of the congregation, then they should be regarded as a man of the nations and treated just as any non-believer would be. Certainly, shunning is not a Scriptural policy here.

  From the foregoing it is plainly obvious to anyone, be they believer or unbeliever, that the Watchtower society has wildly exceeded it’s authority in inflicting a shunning policy as a means of disciplining it’s problem members.

  Certainly, the flak that Brooklyn is receiving from it’s ex’s over the shunning issue is well deserved and just, even if it has been a long time in coming.

  Englishman.

  Bring on the dancing girls!
• 

  gumby

  "Stop associating with him. Yet do not consider him an enemy, but admonish him as a brother"

  Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother who is a .......

  In both of these scriptures the SAME greek word is used for 'stop associating with'. However, the society applies different meanings in these two cases and even changes the wording in NWT.

  Both scriptures show you wouldn't RUN with someone of that caliber.
  However if one scripture shows to admonish him as a brother, then the same application applies in the other scripture.

  1st. corinthians 5:11 was a case of bragging by the sinner AND the congregation of the sin. This was a unique situation that would rarely occur
• 

  Lady Lee

  Hmmm that would mean that they had no grounds to disfellowship me since their supposed reason was something I did only one time. Hmmm which leads me to the conclusion I had all along that the real reason they dfed me was so that the cong would not find out that one of their elders was abusive to his family.

  Great solution - get rid of the victim and keep the abuser. In fact even let him marry another sister and abuse her too. She too found her only escape was one where she was dfed. And she was out and he was still in - talk about a society that protects the abuser.

  Rejoice in the healing and not in the pain.
  Rejoice in the challenge overcome and not in the past hurts.
  Rejoice in the present - full of love and joy.
  Rejoice in the future for it is filled with new horizons yet to be explored. - Lee Marsh 2002
• 

  Englishman

  Lady Lee,

  You are absolutely correct, witness-style DF'ing is all about gagging, stopping someone from being heard.

  Whilst JW's pompously announce that they are "keeping the congregation clean", we have proved here that it is not remotely scriptural to shun, especially when one has made it clear that they no longer consider themself to be a JW.

  We all DF someone sometime, if we are cross with our spouse we may even say that "we are not on speaking terms", however, the Scriptures make no provision for organised shunning of declared ex-members and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

  Englishman.

  Bring on the dancing girls!
• 

  Francois

  Let's not forget that we are dealing with the words of men who were writing from memory of events and statements made decades after the actual facts under consideration. They were writing about the sayings and doings of a man who they did not understand when he was standing right before them. And, too, let's recall that by the time these guys got around to writing, they were as old as the hills themselves. And likely they put their own spin on what they were saying. In fact, Paul seems to have been a past master at inserting his viewpoint and outlook into the Canon with the slightest provocation.

  All this leads to the question, of course, about the infallibility of the bible. I think most of us are agreed that the bible is certainly not infallible. But isn't it amazing that from a book that most religionists consider infallible come over 500 different religions? Seems like they'd all be the same, or there'd be only one religion.

  When is disfellowshipping appropriate?

  Never.

  My two cents.

  Francois

  NOTE TO GOVERNING BODY: You've been challenged to a debate, boys. Dont you have ANY balls?
• 

  ozziepost

  Eman,

  Boy, you sure had me worried when I saw this thread title. I wondered what on earth you were going to say. But I repent brother. I shouldn't have doubted you.

  When I came to read the post, I thought, Right On!

  Can I add another inconsistency in WTS rules? Good, here tis:

  2 Thessalonians 3:14 reads : "keep this one marked, stop associating with him". The "stop associating with him" is translated from the Greek word synanamignysthai. This is the same word which is translated as 'disfellowshipping' in the text you refer to at 1 Corinthians 5:11. Strange, ain't it? yet the WTS instructs its members that 'marking' is an individual response whereas 'disfellowshipping' is a corporate response.

  Further complicating the WTS rrules is that the instruction given by Paul at 2 Thessalonians 3 was to mark those who were "not obedient to our word through this letter" i.e. apostasy/rebellion against the apostles. Wouldn't the WTS disfellowship suchlike ones? Yet these described by Paul were to be 'marked', but they would still be enjoying associating i.e. they would not be shunned.

  Interesting, ain't it?

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "If our hopes for peace are placed in the hands of imperfect people, they are bound to evaporate."

  
  - Ron Hutchcraft Surviving the Storms of Stress
• 

  Amazing

  Hi E-man: In 2nd Cor., the man who was 'reinstated' (welcomed back) was removed by Paul's recommendation in 1st Cor. Paul said that the reproof by the "majority" is sufficient. This is clear that not 100% reproved, marked, shunned, or reduced association with this man ... a man who was having a sexual affair with his stepmother. It is the ONLY case of direct congregation action mentioned in the entire Christian-Greek Scriptures. And it took a special letter from an Apostle to persuade them to do something.
• 

  Imbue

  NO doubt, these men who are no one out in the world. Have let the power go to their little tiny heads. I've seen them be merciless when someone was repentant and wanted to change and they still DF'd her. They're much harder on women. A brother commits adultery and says I'm sorry gets reproved a sister commits adultery and says I'm sorry gets DF'd. To much power for their little minds.

  This is not me. I've never committed adultery and I've not been DF'd yet.

  Crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
• 

  zev

  I am no longer a part of the congregation.

  How am I to be treated?

  Note the hypocritical position of the Witchpower Babble and Tickle Society:

  From:

  http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

  Do you shun former members?

  Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned. In compliance with the Scriptures, however, members can be expelled for serious unchristian conduct, such as stealing, drunkenness, or adultery, if they do not repent and cease such actions. Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties. Disfellowshipped members may continue to attend religious services, and if they wish, they may receive pastoral visits. They are always welcome to return to the faith.—1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

  *** w88 4/15 26 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***
  3 ‘But,’ someone may ask, ‘is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?’ Such a view surfaced in a recent court case involving a woman who was raised by parents who were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Her parents had been disfellowshipped. She was not, but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation. Accordingly, the congregation was simply informed that she was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She moved away, but years later she returned and found that local Witnesses would not converse with her. So she took the matter to court. What was the outcome, and how might this affect you?

  18 The court opinion continued: “Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah’s Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs . . . Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church. Churches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members. We agree with [former U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Jackson’s view that ‘[r]eligious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free—as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.’ . . . The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice.”
  19 The court of appeals acknowledged that even if the woman felt distress because former acquaintances chose not to converse with her, “permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion . . . The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by [her] as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.” This decision has, in a sense, received even more weight since it was handed down. How so? The woman later petitioned the highest court in the land to hear the case and possibly overturn the decision against her. But in November 1987, the United States Supreme Court refused to do so.
  20 Hence, this important case determined that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person cannot recover damages from Jehovah’s Witnesses in a court of law for being shunned. Since the congregation was responding to the perfect directions that all of us can read in God’s Word and applying it, the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions.

  So....whats it to be ?

  To shun or not to shun ?

  Know what? I don't give a rats ass either way.

  They flat out

  LIE

  -Zev
  Learn about the Wtbts and the U.N.
  ** http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69 **
• 

  lurk

  nessasary evil cant allow disruptors to remain