Does Shunning Work?

by JH 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Ed

  Well that's the reason why they shun people. They think you'll go back if you're shunned.

  I'd say it's more like a deterrent to keep the remaining members in line.
• 

  JH

  I posted something up there and it didn't appear. Weird.

  The real reason is to protect the members from information and facts known by the outcasts, i.e. information control.

  But if a DF'd person comes back, he still can cause trouble with the information he has. Then the congregation is not protected.
• 

  jws

  The stated purpose of shunning and snubbing is to create pain and induce the victim to return to the control of the Book Publishing Corporation in order to end the pain. The real reason is to protect the members from information and facts known by the outcasts, i.e. information control.

  I'd have to disagree. Shunning was around long before we had such easy access to information. 30 years ago, if somebody got DFed, it wasn't like they could start poking around and find anti-JW info and a support group of ex-JWs. Before the internet, finding this stuff wasn't easy. Bookstores didn't often carry books about it. Even now, I never see books like COC at Barnes and Noble. Back then, you were on your own. I'd have to agree that nowdays, it also helps to serve that purpose. But I don't think that's what it was dreamt up to do.

  Is shunning biblical? I'm not saying the JW version is, but the concept does seem to appear in the Bible. It seems to be saying stay away from bad people who have no will to change. Not the JW version where you can be DFed for things like smoking. But it does seem like a good general rule. Stay away from people who are hurtful or have no concern for others. Seemed like it was more of a warning to believers about others rather than a way to punish believers who make mistakes now and then.

  As for whether the JW version works? I always saw it as cruel. I knew two people, one a close friend, John, the other more of an aquaintance, Mike. Both were DFed at different times for unrelated things. Both put up an effort to get reinstated, but were never cut a break. Mike's car broke down in the middle of winter and he walked the rest of the way to the hall, but was rebuked for being late and it was counted against him. John was rejected by his sister and was deeply hurt by the loss of friends and the coldness of the elders. During this time, they kept in contact with each other and I kept in contact with John. So, they weren't completely cut off. I'd see Mike every now and then and at least give him a nod or smile and say hi. Talking to him was risky for me. At one point, he took a cleaning job at the company I worked for, so in privacy, we got to talk more. He really appreciated the fact that my brother and I cared enough to acknowledge him and it meant more to him than the coldness of the congregation - especially since we weren't really friends.

  By making it so hard to return, both of them gave up, each for their own reasons. So in these cases, the shunning actually drove them away. If the elders were a little more leniant and gave them some more slack and reinstated them sooner, they may have returned and may be good JWs to this day. In this cong, people often had to pay their dues for a year or two. In other states, I heard of reinstatements in as little as 6 weeks to 2 months.

  To add insult to injury, at some point, the WBTS determined that people who were never baptised could not be DFed. John, growing up "in the truth", but never getting baptised fit into this category. Suddenly his sister welcomed him and reestablished contact. The only thing that changed about John was how an organization categorized him. One day he's off limits, the next he's OK. So, basically, he was wrongly shunned by so-called "God's Organization". According to the JW view, apparently God saw fit to mess up John's life and deeply hurt him because he wasn't ready to reveal this technicality about non-baptised ones to his people yet.
• 

  garybuss

  
  jws, thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what facts you are disagreeing with. Do a word search on the Watch Tower Publishing Corporation produced CD on the words "disfellowship" and "pain" together and you will find the Watchtower quote that says disfellowshipping's purpose is to produce pain in the victim. I would find it for you but I do not have access to a cd right now.
  
  As for the information protection policy, do your homework back to Rutherford's purge and the Johnson writings. Also you might want to talk to Witnesses who were there during the 30 Years A Watchtower Slave publication in the 1950's. Isolation of dissenters has always been the reason for the disfellowshipping policy rather than a benefit. If you read the history you will see this is a fact. The internet has changed nothing. It has just made it faster and easier to fine information.
  
  If you have facts to support your disagreements, I am very open to looking at it. Please just post the information here. Thanks, gary
  
  
  
• 

  Lady Lee

  I think that in the past the DFing policy did act as a punishment to get people to go back. In the past those who were shunned had no supports. They were cut off from family and community. If they had been "in" for a long time and all their family were JWs then the shunned person had little support on theoutside. Rules about not talking to those who were shunned seemed to apply to even the shunned ones when they met others who were DFed. It was a tool to isolate and it worked well. I think many more went back in the past than do now.

  I do think the internet has changed the face of shunning. No longer are the shunned isolated. By means of the internet they can get access to information and others who are in the same situation. It might take a bit of courage to take a look but once the information and contact is available, those who see the real truth increasingly consider going back only for family contact. And for many of us enslavement to the Borg is too high a price to pay for conditional acceptance by family
• 

  jws

  I'm not saying there isn't dissenting materials or that they haven't always been around. I just don't think that is the main reason for shunning.

  My only experiences are personal. From what I know of DF'ed people or even "shunned" people, many of them don't have knowledge of "apostate" things and many of them felt guilty and ashamed and were trying to get back in. If they were a hotbed of "apostate" information, then very few, if any would try to return because they would know better.

  And I do believe this information was rare and hard to come by. When I was in my teens in the early 80's, I heard about books like "30 years a WT slave" and a little later about COC. I had no clue where to find those books. It's not like amazon.com was available. I checked the bookstores in the local malls and could find nothing.

  Eventually a friend taped a religious program and it had an address of a mail-order place. And in my opinion, mail-order back then wasn't exactly readily-available merchandise. That was in 1991.

  It is not necessarily a logical progression that some guy or girl goes out and has sex, gets disfellowshipped, then turns "apostate".

  Now a disassociated person might be in a different category (or person DFed for apostacy) because they chose to leave or dissent. But somebody who goes out and commits some vice is probably not going to become a source of dissenting information. So why make a policy of shunning these offenders? Especially when, if you don't shun them, they probably continue a loyal JW.
• 

  garybuss

  
  jws, the Watchtower magazine states the purpose of disfellowshipping is to cause pain. Apparently I misunderstood. I thought you were disagreeing with the facts. Sorry.
  
  You wrote:

  My only experiences are personal.

  So are mine:-) I write from a historical perspective, and I am always learning and always eager to be relieved of a delusion. I appreciate your comments, Thanks! gary