Heisenberg: Do you think it would be better to expel them from the congregation but still allow them to socialize with the members of the congregation? How would that work? What effect would the expulsion have if they are still allowed to keep in contact with everyone? It would be pointless.
Your reply shows how formatted you are by the JW's teachings. This is what the Watchtower Library won't tell you:
In the early days of the Christian congregations (at least those who were started by Paul, and those are the ones we're best informed about, because that's the strain of Christianity that ended up triumphant), the congregational gatherings took place, not in Kingdom Halls, but in private homes. Those meetings had two parts: The symposium and the eucharistia.
The first part, the symposium, was opened to everyone, including unbelievers. (check 1 Cor 14:24) One, or several baptized members addressed the congregation with dissertations about Jesus' life, their faith and hope, readings from the Torah and the Prophets, accounts from the apostles' deeds, letters from other congregations, preaching, "speaking in tongues", prophesying, healings. In many cases there were itinerant preachers who would visit congregations and would receive hospitality from the congregation - often that hospitality was extended by the Christian family in which household the meetings were regularly held. - See an example of that in Acts 15:1, 32
The second part, the eucharistia, was reserved for the initiated - baptized - members of the congregation, and consisted of a simple shared meal, with bread and wine and prayer (mandatory, for they were the symbols of Christ's body and blood), plus some optional items such as vegetables and fish. Only baptized members of the congregation were present in the gathering room at this time, and this meal was their symbolic participation in the "blood and body" of the Lord. It was the fellowship at this table meal that symbolized an individual's belonging to the Christian congregation, what separated him/her from the unbelievers that were left out in this feature.
As you can imagine, the "two hopes" doctrine of 1935 created a second class of Christians with earthly hope that no longer partook of the emblems. This has no biblical support, for in the first century and beyond every baptized Christian participated from the table fellowship of the eucharistia. More, this communal mean took place on every weekly gathering, usually on Sunday evenings, NOT once a year as is our practice. (There are reasons for this, but they're too long to explain here).
With this in mind, you can better understand the context of Paul and John's admonishments regarding unrepentant transgressors and how they were to be treated by the congregation. When someone was expelled from the congregation, the table fellowship ended - that person was no longer to partake in the eucharistia, or symbolically, no longer sharing in the body and blood of Jesus Christ as baptized Christians commonly did. This is what Paul was talking when he wrote: "Not even eating with such people" (1 Cor 5:11). That was the sort of fellowship that should cease. It doesn't mean that the members of the congregation should shun that person or cut communication with him/her. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself when he wrote: "take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (2 Tes 3:14, 15) How would the members of the congregation 'stop associating with' while at the same time 'admonish him as a brother'? How can you do that unless you communicate with that person, and still consider that person as a brother? Note also that the admonishing wasn't restricted to the congregation episkopos, or elders, as Jehovah's Witnesses practice nowadays. Everyone was to treat that person as a brother, and everyone should keep on admonishing the errant, for which one needs to keep communicating with. Clearly, the command to 'stop associating with' is not a command to shun, but a command to withdraw that person from the eucharistia, which would be a form of discipline by shame, because such person, who previously enjoyed such fellowship, was now being invited to leave before the congregation partake on the eucharistia, their symbol of union and fellowship with Jesus Christ.
You can also understand what John said: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds." (2 John 1:11) Consider the context of this letter: To whom was John writing? He was writing to a prominent individual Christian woman and mother, possibly wealthy, who held Christian meetings at her house. (2 John 1:1, 5, 10) He wasn't writing to an entire congregation nor to the Christian congregation at large. His instructions were meant for the person who hosted Christian gatherings at her dwelling place. As I said above, this "Lady" - possibly a wealthy widow - would frequently host itinerant preachers at her house who would then be invited to address the congregation during the weekly symposium. As there were many new, 'unauthorized' versions of Christianity circulating already, including the Ebionites, and several brands of proto-gnosticism, John cautioned this Christian Lady against inviting such deviant preachers into her house [as guests] and into the gatherings held at her house [as guest speakers/teachers/prophets]. So, the command "do not receive him into your house" wasn't about the social aspect of the interaction, but, rather, about stopping them from acting as teachers of doctrine in her house and in her congregation. What about "greeting"? Again, consider the cultural context: In the first century middle east, the most common greeting form would involve a form of "May God Bless You", or "God Speed", or "God Be With You"; This sort of greeting implied that the greeter was giving his blessing to the one that was being greeted. In this case, if the itinerant preacher was teaching falsehood, to greet him with "God Bless You" [instead of rebuking him] was a way to partake in his sinful teaching work. That's why John said "the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds". Nowadays the situation is entirely different. A simple "Hello", or "How are you?" or "Give my regards to your family" objectively doesn't mean we're offering our blessing to 'false teachings' or agree with them in any measure or form. Only religious propaganda of hate constructs it in such a way. Plus, as it's plain to see, John's command involved - at best- only apostasy, and not any other form of transgression; therefore, it's 'going beyond what's written' to interpret it as a blanket instruction on how to treat disfellowshipped people for any kind of sin.
Even Jesus didn't shun sinners, as you well know. If the disciples were to become imitators of Jesus, then when he told them to treat unrepentant transgressors as "heathen men and tax collectors" (Mat 18:17) - well, how did Jesus treated non-israelites and tax collectors? Did he shun them? Or kindly interacted with them, even sharing a meal with Zaccaheus and healing a Greek woman's daughter in Tyre? Hence, he set the finest example of compassion towards sinners. (See Luke 19:5-7; Mark 7:25-30)
There could be a lot more to say about this subject, because it goes even deeper than this, but this will suffice, I hope. You have been fed partial information by the Watchtower; the important bits that are at odds with their doctrine are simply omitted or misrepresented in the publications. This is why it's so important to educate yourself outside the WT publications and libraries.
The Watchtower is wrong about shunning transgressors. And the depth of their error is so big, that they cannot afford to change it without opening a doctrinal can of worms, as you can see by the above. The Bible doesn't support shunning, plain simply. Contrary to Watchtower's claims, shunning isn't an act of love, it's an act of hate. And hate is unchristian.
Eden
