Well, what a surprise to come on the board early this morning to see such an interesting discussion taking place. "Heartwarming", it is! Thank you Bad Associate (not itching any more?!), unanswered, bigboi, Loves Dubs, Newbie, and Emperor waiting for your most interesting and absorbing comments.
Welcome 'had_enough' to this place and thank you for re-introducing this topic of Restrictions and bringing it on to a new ‘plane’. I hope that, in time, you will find this place a ‘Home Sweet Home’. I enjoyed your well-thought out post. May there be many more!
Welcome too to humble. As ‘iron sharpens iron’ so do your comments help us all to validate our views.
Thanks for taking the time to read the earlier post on Restrictions, a little known area of the Witness book of rules. It's really not given much attention by the elders and they're given very little instruction on it. As you so correctly pointed out, the parable of the Prodigal Son says nothing of the son being taken back into the father's household where he would have to 'prove himself'. The parable was given by our Lord Jesus to show how the Father reaches out to his sinful 'son' and lovingly welcome him home to Himself. In the parable it says that the father saw his son "afar off". He didn't have time, and was not able to see, the 'credentials' of his son.
Another aspect of this, too, was referred to in the Watchtower of October 1, 1998 where it discussed the older son who was quite indignant at the welcome being given to his brother. He was likened to some elders. Sometimes the borg gets it right!
had enough:
<<Is this the ‘loving’ treatment Jesus expected us to inflict on ‘lost sheep’?>>
Here is shown the sharp contrast between what the Witnesses view as Christian and on what evangelical Christians believe it means to reflect Christ’s love.
<<If God’s spirit is directing the elders decision why is there a need for an appeal arrangement?>>
EXACTLY!
bigboi:
It would be good if all of us, including the lurkers who are JWs, re-read your pithy review of the situation of the brother in the Corinthian congregation. As I read it, I thought: Precisely!
As a side point, the man to be reinstated in 2 Corinthians is around 6 months after 1 Corinthians. If this is the same man (despite what the WTBTS claims, it is not certain, as he is not named) then he did not have to wait at least 12 months as is the case in the congregations of JWs.
Of course the only example of disfellowshipping is found in this case. As I mentioned in the original thread on Restrictions there is no mention of restrictions in the first century congregation as described in the New Testament.
Unanswered:
You asked how does any man or woman have the ability or right to decide when another’s conscience is ‘clean’, it not being a biblical notion?
The elders’ manual “Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock”(ks91) describes for the elders how they might recognise a heart that is repentant.
1. Has the individual contritely prayed to Jehovah and sought His forgiveness and mercy?
2. Has he admitted his wrongdoing?
3. Has he made restitution, etc?
4. What seems to motivate the sadness, remorse, and regret he shows?
5. Does he have a deep regret over a damaged relationship with Jehovah, remorse over the reproach he has brought upon Jehovah’s name and people,etc?
6. Does his attitude include a heart-motivated rejection of the bad course as something repugnant, hated?
Notice that it then states : “On occasion it may take more than one meeting for reproof to reach the wrongdoer’s heart and move him to repentance. ….. If all reasonable efforts has been made to readjust the one who has committed serious sins and yet he remains unrepentant, he must be disfellowshipped.” In theory, then, only unrepentant wrongdoers are disfellowshipped. (I will comment on this later).
Humble:
I should like to make a number of comments on your posts. Your words in the main reflect Watchtower teaching except in one area. You refuted BadAssociate’s point that you were not following the rules of your faith. May I point out to you that you are kidding yourself on that one. You know very well that the Society have warned of the dangers of taking part or even logging on to Witness sites. Why? Because of ‘bad association’. You will remember the Kingdom Ministry insert warning of that. You claim that the elders will not disfellowship you for your views. You’re missing the point. They can disfellowship you for wilfully associating with apostates. Haven’t you noticed that there are many ExJWs here? Some here are DF/DA. You’re conversing on spiritual matters with them. Sometimes the heart can cloud over our sense of reason. BTW by those comments I’m not wishing to cast aspersions to my fellow posters. Quite the opposite. But I want to help you see that you should face up to the truth of your position. I wish this for you in all sincerity.
Now to the topic of Restrictions, I have some comments on points you have raised.
“A disfellowshipped person may sit anywhere he/she please in the Kingdom Hall and with whomever” - Maybe. But these are some directions given by elders in Australian congregations in recent years.
One congregation insisted that a disfellowshipped man sit alone in the vestibule.
Entering after the opening prayer, and leaving during the concluding song.
Sitting in the back row only.
Again the practices are much different to what is shown in print.
To bigboi you commented on the second Corinthians case of reinstatement. And remark that Paul could not read hearts either. No, of course not, and he didn’t claim to, but what he said was “that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad”(2 Cor 2:7) That, brother, is plain common sense! It shows something else too. Paul must have been interested in this man’s welfare whilst he was disfellowshipped to know of his position. Now isn’t that different to what the WTBTS have instructed the elders? You also stated “they don’t disfellowship a person that is truly repentant”. – Brother, you’re kidding yourself! That may be the impression the borg would like to convey but I assure you that it ain’t the truth! I know of persons being disfellowshipped ‘to make an example’ of them, for revenge, and so on.
On the matter of King David you repeat the Watchtower ‘line’ that there “are repercussions to all our actions. King David was very repentant, but he was also disciplined and suffered the consequences of his wrongdoing.” True, but he the consequences were not with his relationship with Jehovah. They were not with the ‘organisation’ (nation) of the time. The consequences were within his family. They were personal. Jesus is born in the line of David, he is the Greater David.
Finally I would like to comment on the matter of a permanent record of judicial cases. You state that “There is no permanent record.” Brother, you are mistaken. Please do not think that claiming to be the secretary in your congregation will hold any weight here. People here on this board are free to express themselves in a way that’s forbidden in Kingdom Halls and enforced by elders. I could just as easily say that I have been a Presiding overseer or a secretary for 35 years and have been in Bethel service. It holds no weight here. What does hold weight is the truthfulness and reasonableness of our words. The procedure for recording judicial cases is this:
Chairman of judicial committee completes a report which is placed in a plain sealed envelope. On the outseide of the envelope is written the date, the person ‘dealt with’ and the committee names, showing who was chairman. This envelope is passed to the congregation secretary for the congregation file. Now this procedure was amended in the UK because of the British Government passing the Data Protection Act. A letter was addressed to all Bodies of elders on October 20, 1998 detailing the new arrangements for the handling of congregation records. In other places, so far as I am aware, the situation is as I have described above. It certainly is in Australia, where there is at present no Data protection Act.
Will a person's record follow them? To had_enough you say No. But again you are mistaken. Anecdotal evidence shows me that a person's record does follow them. I know of one recent matter where the record of a brother was kept at Bethel (based on a wrong accusation for which he was exonerated) and that prevented him from being appointed in his congregation despite the recommendation of his elders and C.O.
Humble, please try to understand that with so many examples, experiences and so on being made known in posts on this board, that something must be wrong. Please consider!
Cheers,
ozzie
