Hardline on disfellowshipped ones

by eyeslice 55 Replies latest jw friends

  • eyeslice
    eyeslice

    Once again a hard line is being taken on shunning disfellowshipped and disassociated ones. Perhaps this is some sort of backlash against the recent adverse Dateline publicity in the US, the forthcoming Pananorama programme in the UK and problems with a number of influential ones leaving the organization. The text below is from the August KM insert and the meeting part is to be handled by a "well qualified" elder with the paragraphs being read by a "capable reader". In other words, this is to be like a Watchtower study but, obviously, this explicit type of material could not be printed in the Watchtower due to its more public nature - wouldn't want Joe Public reading this sort of thing about a loving organization the WTBTS publicly purports to be.

    The headline message is simple - "don't have anything to do with them". The problem is the underlying message is we are struggling on all fronts, lets clamp down on this as hard as possible before we have tidal wave of problems.

    Personally, even when serving as an elder, I had grave reservations about disfellowshipping individuals. In the article below, there only two scriptures of any note that can be used to justify disfellowshipping. Pauls writing to Corinthians and Jesus words in Matthew 18.

    In the case of Pauls word, they had to do with one who was obviously a disruptive and a spiritual danger to the congregation. However, there was no judicial committee meeting, Paul himself gave the advice. Additionally, he did not give a whole list of rules and regulations about what family members could or could not do with respect to this individual. You could simply sum up Pauls words by saying if someone does not want to live by our standards let them get on with it outside the congregation, it has nothing to with us, the world is full of sinners and we cannot get out of the world. Interestingly, in the second letter to Corinthians, Paul is quick to adjust the congregations attitude to the individual reproved in his first letter - quote "to the contrary now, you should kindly forgive and comfort him, that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad". How many references have there been on this board to the tradgic suicides of shunned ones?

    With Jesus, his words at Matthew 18, is referring to personal matters, not moral, congregational, judicial matters. This is well known even amongst the witnesses. The sort of thing that Jesus was referring to here was slander, fraud, etc, things that could be sorted out between two brothers without the involvement of others. If all else failed, Jesus was saying do not bother with that one any more; he/she is not worth it. He was not saying the community should shun that one, quote let him be to you just as a man of the nations and a tax collector.



    Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative is Disfellowshipped

    1. The bond between family members can be very strong. This brings a test upon a Christian when a marriage mate, a child, a parent, or another close relative is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the congregation. (Matt. 10:37) How should loyal Christians treat such a relative? Does it make a difference if the person lives in your household? First, let us review what the Bible says on this subject, the principles of which apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who disassociate themselves.

    2. How to Treat Expelled Ones: God's Word commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation: "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.... Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) Jesus' words recorded at Matthew 18:17 also bear on the matter: "Let (the expelled one] be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." Jesus' hearers well knew that the Jews of that day had no fraternization with Gentiles and that they shunned tax collectors as outcasts. Jesus was thus instructing his followers not to associate with expelled ones - See The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 18-20. 3. This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God's Word states that we should 'not even eat with such a man.' (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, or trip to the shops or theatre or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.

    4. What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah's view of matters: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him." Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15,1981, page 25, says: "A simple 'Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?"

    5. Indeed, it is just as page 31 of the same issue of The Watchtower states: "The fact is that when a Christian gives himself over to sin and has to be disfellowshiped, he forfeits much: his approved standing with God;.. sweet fellowship with the brothers, including much of the association he had with Christian relatives."

    6. In the Immediate Household: Does this mean that Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member are to avoid talking to, eating with, and associating with that one as they go about their daily activities?' The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: "'If in a Christian's household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities." Thus, it would be left to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities. And yet, they would not want to give brothers with whom they associate the impression that everything is the same as it was before the disfellowshipping occurred.

    7. However, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 28, points out regarding the disfellowshipped or disassociated person: "Former spiritual ties have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his relatives, including those within his immediate family circle. .
    That will mean changes in the spiritual fellowship that may have existed in the home. For example, if the husband is disfellowshiped, his wife and children will not be comfortable with him conducting a family Bible study or leading in Bible reading and prayer. If he wants to say a prayer, such as at mealtime, he has a right to do so in his own home. But they can silently offer their own prayers to God. (Prov. 28:9; Ps. 119:145, 146) What if a disfellowshiped person in the home wants to be present when the family reads the Bible together or has a Bible study? The others might let him be present to listen if he will not try to teach them or share his religious ideas.

    8. If a minor child living in the home is disfellowshipped, Christian parents are still responsible for his upbringing. The Watchtower of November 15, 1988, page 20, states: "Just as they will continue to provide him with food, clothing, and shelter, they need to instruct and discipline him in line with God's Word. (Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17) Loving parents may thus arrange to have a home Bible study with him, even if he is disfellowshipped. Maybe he will derive the most corrective benefit from their studying with him alone. Or they may decide that he can continue to share in the family study arrangement."-See also The Watchtower of October f, 2001, pages 16-17.

    9. Relatives Not in the Household: "The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living, outside the immediate family circle and home," states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. "It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum," in harmony with the divine injunction to "quit mixing in company with anyone" who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum. - See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.

    10. The Watchtower addresses another situation that can arise: "What if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8)... What is done may depend on factors such as the parent's true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household."-The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.

    11. As for a child, the same article continues: "Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshiped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring 'leaven' into the home? - Gal. 5:9."

    12. Benefits of Being Loyal to Jehovah: Cooperating with the Scriptural arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial. It preserves the cleanness of the congregation and distinguishes us as upholders of the Bible's high moral standards. (1 Pet. 1:14-16) It protects us from corrupting influences. (Gal. 5:7-9) It also affords the wrongdoer an opportunity to benefit fully from the discipline received, which can help him to produce "peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."-Heb. 12:11.

    13. After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immediately after the assembly, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. Shortly thereafter, his mother began attending meetings and was eventually reinstated. Also, her unbelieving husband began studying and in time was baptized.

    14. Loyally upholding the disfellowshipping arrangement outlined in the Scriptures demonstrates our love for Jehovah and provides an answer to the one that is taunting Him. (Prov. 27:11) In turn, we can be assured of Jehovah's blessing. King David wrote regarding Jehovah: "As for his statutes, I shall not turn aside from them. With someone loyal you will act in loyalty."-2 Sam. 22:23, 26.

    Edited by - eyeslice for formatting and spelling errors on 13 July 2002 7:37:24

    Edited by - eyeslice add quote marks on 13 July 2002 7:37:24

    Edited by - eyeslice on 13 July 2002 7:45:20

  • jesussaves
    jesussaves

    Interesting... I wonder how this is going to affect my shaky relationships with my family members. My two aunts took the hardline a long time ago, as well as my sister. My grandmother goes through phases. Sometimes she's calling everyday to talk about my kids, sometimes she calls me a 'devil worshipper'. My mom is a non-issue, seeing that she curses out elders anytime she gets a chance. It's funny how they just throw the term 'dissassociated' right in there with 'disfellowshipped'. Paul was talking about unrepentant sinners. I lived a more sinful life as a JW, than I do now. I'm sure my family will be moved by the story of the family that caused their mom to get reinstated. We shall see....

  • Matty
  • Bang
    Bang

    They cut their hair, but shun their own children.

    " Does not even nature itself teach you "

    Bang

    Animals show more care.

    Edited by - Bang on 13 July 2002 7:6:6

  • Francois
    Francois

    Very good post, eyeslice. It just cries out for comment, doesn't it?

    The article quoted states, "For example, if the husband is disfellowshiped, his wife
    and children will not be comfortable with him conducting a family Bible
    study or leading in Bible reading and prayer. If he wants to say a prayer,
    such as at mealtime, he has a right to do so in his own home. But they
    can silently offer their own prayers to God. (Prov. 28:9; Ps. 119:145,
    146) What if a disfellowshiped person in the home wants to be present
    when the family reads the Bible together or has a Bible study? The others
    might let him be present to listen if he will not try to teach them or
    share his religious ideas.

    Notice this paragraph unambiguously states, "...his wife and children will not be comfortable with him conducting a family bible study or leading in bible reading and prayer." Now how does the writing department know that the family "will not be comfortable"? They don't. This statement is not an honest observation of fact; this statement is a command from the society, in the form of a suggestion. It has been noted elsewhere that cult members are highly suggestible, and this suggestion/command takes full advantage of that fact. In other words, the society knows they are dealing with pliable, suggestible people. So here they suggest that family members won't feel comfortable with the situation described. And the sickest part of this is that the JW who reads and accepts this nonsense won't feel comfortable.

    But what really shows in stark relief is the statement that "The others might let him be present to listen if he will not try to teach them or share is religious ideas." This is over the top as far as I'm concerned. Here's the picture: Let's say this is my home. If I'm a JW male working, of course, at a job far below my level of basic intelligence because I don't have an education, and I'm paying the mortgage or, more likely, the rent; I'm purchasing the family groceries, paying for the family car, and everything else the family needs, who the hell is the society to advise my wife and children that they "might let" me be present just so I can "listen" if I will not "try" to teach them or share my religious ideas? How dare this bunch of pedophile-protecting ass holes attempt to reach into my family and dictate what I may do, and what my family may or may not feel about it, or what they may "let" me do? These people give a new and corrosive meaning to the word arrogance. There's just no wonder they are so fully and thoroughly despised.

    When you further realize that these type instructions are merely a ploy to keep Watchtower-subjected family members from hearing the truth about the prophetic failures, the pedophile protecting, the doctrinal flip-flops, the massive amounts of questionable money involved, or the culpability of the governing body in thousands of deaths each year due to their indefensible position on blood - well, it's just an intolerable, unacceptable situation.

    It just can't be long before property belonging to the WTBTS and it's many shell organizations (all part of a giant conspiracy to HIDE the truth about the organization) begin to come under attack by the hundreds of thousands of people who have been kicked out of this cult for calling a cult a cult. I can see some of the buildings in that complex going up in a massive explosion of flames. And I can't think of any organization that deserves it more.

    Francois

    Edited by - Francois on 13 July 2002 7:24:54

    Edited by - Francois on 13 July 2002 7:27:51

    Edited by - Francois on 13 July 2002 7:30:41

  • Dizzy Cat
    Dizzy Cat

    Ahhh - but if you blow up the WT headquarters, would that not be another sign of the end? You know ..... the world finally turns against the TRUTH !!!!

    Gibber .... I'm starting to quake and dribble slightly :oP

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    Good comments Francois.

    Edited by - Pathofthorns on 13 July 2002 7:51:35

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    I have no reason to doubt that you would fabricate such an article; however, I find it extremely surprising that the WTS would write something like this in the year 2002. This appears to me to be a crushing blow to the hopes that the JW religion will become more mainstream as regards the treatment of DF'd ones and those who quit of their own accord.

    Cygnus, DF'd but not shunned by family and never will be

  • SPAZnik
    SPAZnik

    Hardline on disfellowshipped ones

    Bin waitin' fer this. Bin 'spectin it actually.

    My jdub elder father will be really happy about it.
    He's been 'campaigning' 'mongst his political circles to hardline this rule for sometime now.

    He will feel it proves him right over his ex-wife (my jdub mother) once and for all.

    He will also feel it proves that jehovahs spirit is truly with him and not with her.

    Next he'll seek to ensure she gets 'dealt with' if she associates with either of her two ex-jdub children. Which children he abandoned when they were six and two...leaving her to raise and support alone.

    Pfflbbbt. *blows raspberries*

    SPAZ

  • Thirdson
    Thirdson

    There are some very good abservations about this KM article and I glad it is getting an airing. With virtually no contact with their relatives the loyal, actually blindly obedient JW, can treat them as dead. A 14 year old minor who is DF'd for some trivial, youthful inexperience may leave the home later and never have any contact with his/her family. If the person decides that JWs are actually a cult and not worth being a member of this DF'ing sentence is a life sentence. Even convicted criminals get lesser sentences. My example experience is repeated over and over again unlike the pathetic one attached to the end of the KM article.

    I use the word "cult" in my description of Jehovah's Witnesses because more and more I see them that way and such controling attempts to stop the truth being spread about the Watchtower Society just adds to the proof.

    I guess the change in wording on the Watchtower's media site (FAQs) is in line with this hardening of attitude.

    Thirdson

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit