Is Disfellowshipping properly legislated?

by Rattigan350 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Rattigan350

  In the Insight Book under Expelling, it refers to 1 Cor 5 and Titus 3 and 2 Thess 3 as the basis for Disfellowshipping.
  They've often said that the governing body was stated in Acts 15 of the Apostles and older men. However, why was there no decree or letter issued by the Governing Body or Apostles and Older men and sent out to the congregations, detailing the principles of disfellowshipping? It is all Paul. I mean, if Chief Justice John Roberts speaks to a group and makes statements, those are not law or rules. It is considered his opinion. It is only when a quorum of the court makes a decision and issues an opinion is it law.So, why is a doctrine and procedure created based on only what Paul said?
• 

  Fisherman

  So, why is a doctrine and procedure created based on only what Paul said?

  In a legal setting a person that is disorderly or breaks a law can be trespassed from private or even public property for a year or longer because he is encroaching on others. In a church setting or JW community a member who breaks the rules and doesn’t want to stop disrupts the practicing of religion by others in the group. If he doesn’t stop, he is put out. Fundamentally, this makes sense.
  
  
• 

  Journeyman

  So, why is a doctrine and procedure created based on only what Paul said?

  One the one hand, one could see this as Paul speaking off his own bat. On the other, he could simply have been formalising what was a de facto situation/arrangement.

  There is no record of any dissent from Paul's view on this, unlike in other areas where it is recorded that there were heated debates and votes by older men to decide what should be done.

  I think the question revolves more around, not if disfellowshipping of some sort should ever happen, but what exactly it should involve.

  As Fisherman said, there is nothing odd about the idea of expelling someone from a group if they refuse to follow its 'rules' and will not be a peaceful or orderly member of the group. That's normal in all sorts of settings.

  However, the question comes with how that person should be treated afterwards.

  Based on the Scriptures, it seems that that depends on exactly why the person left or was disfellowshipped in the first place.

  In my opinion, when we compare what the scriptures say about how Jesus acted around his enemies, how we should treat family members including unbelieving marriage mates, and also the verses that Christians are encouraged to "exhort" the disorderly and the weak, it seems that the current JW policy of total shunning in all cases appears to "go beyond what is written".

  In hinges much more on whether the disfellowshipped person has taken a stand against Jesus or become an "antichrist" or opposer, possibly introducing contradictory teachings about Christ's role, such as denying the resurrection. That is the context in which Paul says Christians should "not even say a greeting" to such ones, but not in every kind of case where someone leaves the congregation.

  Again, the context also seems to show that "disfellowshipping" is much more about not inviting the person into your home for fellowship or sharing in worship with them, rather than literally acting as though they are dead, such as the way JW videos show parents ignoring desperate phone calls from children or vice versa.
• 

  road to nowhere

  Uneven application. Corinthians example was less than a year.
• 

  Journeyman

  Uneven application. Corinthians example was less than a year.

  You illustrate my point all the more. As I said, the scriptures do not support the concept of "total shunning" as applied by the Org today. In that case, because the man was repentant, Paul said he should be accepted back and not shamed any more.

  A couple of other points:

  1) The current "total shunning" policy creates potential absurd situations like this: an active JW is 'allowed' to talk to a work colleague who is a self-confessed satanist or staunch atheist/anti-religionist with an 'unscriptural' lifestyle, yet they are not 'allowed' to talk to a next-door neighbour who is a baptised JW who still believes in Jehovah, Jesus, the Bible, etc, but was disfellowshipped for a relatively minor sin or for a procedural reason.

  2) In Paul's letters he wrote a number of times to warn brothers about the association they were having with some less reputable members of the congregation. In the letters to the congregations at the start of Revelation Jesus also warns some about tolerating the influence of "Jezebel". These were not people outside the congregation, but supposed 'brothers'. These warnings suggest that the early Christians did not apply total shunning but were free to an extent to apply discretion and their conscience in who they interacted with, otherwise why would they have to be cautioned so often about going too far in association?

  Compare with today's JWs where it's rare for warnings about associating with the disfellowshipped to have to be mentioned because the total shunning policy is so rigorously enforced. (It does happen of course, but not often across an org of 8m people worldwide.)

  Bottom line: the problem is not the concept of disfellowshipping, it's the policy of "total shunning". Total shunning does not have real support from the scriptures and it's also that that causes so much distress and harm.
• 

  Rattigan350

  The reason that the organization has the shunning policy is to put a wall around the people in the congregation to control the information that they get.

  My query was that it is odd how people follow the apostles or letters from them when they are no different than a circuit or district overseer, or a Bethel Elder giving a letter or talk. The letters in the Bible were not outlines or manuscripts written and approved by the governing body, faithful slaves and then distributed to all the congregations. It's not like the organization policy today. People like to look to the ones that have been called Saints with reverence.
• 

  Journeyman

  My query was that it is odd how people follow the apostles or letters from them when they are no different than a circuit or district overseer, or a Bethel Elder giving a letter or talk.

  Possibly, but if you take the Bible as "gospel" (pardon the pun), the apostle Paul was selected by Jesus so he could be said to be acceptable as a source of instruction for the body of Christians.

  There's definitely no such evidence for any of the modern-day org like the GB, COs or Bethel elders!
  
  
• 

  TonusOH

  If the Bible really is the word of God, then it's just a matter of interpretation and not authority-- Paul would be the author of a divinely-inspired work, and his words would be canon. The only question would be if the JWs had the correct interpretation and application of his words. Many religions have rules for expelling members who cross certain lines. I think it's more a question of whether the JW shunning practice is defensible from a Biblical standpoint.

  Edit: Journeyman beat me to the point!
• 

  EasyPrompt

  "...a question of whether the JW shunning practice is defensible from a Biblical standpoint."

  
  

  What Does the Bible Really Teach?

  
  

  "But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside..." (1 Corinthians 5:11,12)

  
  

  In context, Paul was talking about a situation that everybody in the congregation knew about. "Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife." Paul was not judging the man as if Paul was on some judicial hearing. Paul said that it was as if he was there in spirit, in other words, if Paul was there, he'd not associate with that guy for worship activities, because it was obvious the guy was a faker, pretending to be all "holy" meanwhile sleeping around with his dad's wife! Paul wasn't setting up some kind of "judicial process" with "elders". He told the entire congregation, "The Corinthians", to wake up and realize you can't pretend to be pleasing God if you're doing something that even the rest of the world finds to be shockingly disgusting. No "judicial committee" was necessary.

  
  

  When it said "do you not judge those inside" Paul wasn't talking to a committee of three elders or some kind of clergy class. He was talking to the whole congregation, telling them to use common sense. First Corinthians 5 in context is also talking about not "eating" with the man at the Lord's Evening Meal. It was talking about not worshipping with him until he stopped sleeping around with his dad's wife. Everybody knew when the guy stopped living with her, and they welcomed the guy back for worship at that time. It wasn't some kind of "three elders in the back room" judgment. (Just a side note, but even in ancient Israel the judgments took place in the city gate for everyone to look on - it wasn't in a secret back room.)

  
  

  Here's another verse the JW shunners try to misapply to support their disfellowshipping doctrine...

  
  

  "Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 8-11)

  
  

  Other translations sometimes say "do not wish godspeed" to such a person, in other words, don't be telling someone "good job" when they are being naughty. What kind of "naughty" was John talking about? He wasn't talking about the same topic as Paul was. He wasn't talking about some kind of judicial punishment for adulterers and fornicators. In context, John had just been talking about those who were teaching false doctrines and were deceiving others in the congregation as false teachers.

  
  

  Today the governing body teaches the 1914 doctrine and they also say that the heavenly resurrection has already taken place. Both of those doctrines are false teachings. According to John's words here, when "brothers" give a talk about "the kingdom came in 1914" or "the heavenly resurrection started after 1914" then people shouldn't say "good job!" and commend them in their bad deceptive teachings.

  
  

  As regards false teachers like the governing body, here are some more words Paul said:

  
  

  "But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:16-18)

  
  

  When the governing body teaches that the kingdom already started and that some of the anointed are already ruling as kings, the governing body is attempting to gain clout and power so they can also rule as kings on earth right now. Jesus is not pleased with them. But that is for another topic...

  
  

  What kind of example did Jesus set as regards his interactions with people? Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. He talked with prostitutes and demon possessed individuals. He even talked to the Devil. Jesus didn't shun people. He said if someone repented up to 77 times a day to forgive them that day, not to wait for some year long repentance to be measured by a committee of three imperfect men in a back room somewhere.

  
  

  It was the Pharisees who adopted the Greek philosophy of ostracism and meshed it with their way of twisting scripture. In the first century, apostasy infiltrated the congregation and the Didache advised a similar process to the modern Pharisaical disfellowshipping doctrine. Jesus said to beware such leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, and told us that it would ferment the whole lump, or congregation, as we see today.

  
  

  God is Love, and anyone who does not love his brother cannot love God. Shunning in the way of the disfellowshipping doctrine is not loving or scriptural, it is antichrist and an apostasy from what the Bible really teaches.
• 

  Zilgee

  Letter was only to Corinthians not all Christians.