"Not Bringing Reproach on Jehovah's Name" is a Non-Sensical Excuse for Shunning

by truth_b_known 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  truth_b_known

  For whatever reason I was thinking on the topic of Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of disfellowshipping its members based on the concept of preventing "bringing reproach on Jehovah's name". Follow me if you will -

  Over 20 years ago a friend of mine did something rather crazy; he committed a major crime. This incident was actually covered by the local tv news and newspaper. As a result he was disfellowshipped on the spot. 3 elders from his congregation met, without him (he was sitting in the county jail), and decided to DF him. Their reason - to prevent bringing reproach on Jehovah's name.

  Now then, speak to any JW or any Christian or even practicing Jew and ask them "What is the first thing you think of when thinking of David from the Old Testament?" No doubt the first thing they will bring up is how much faith he had when facing the giant Goliath in battle or the self control and devotion he showed when he didn't slay King Saul when he had the chance.

  What they probably won't say it "Oh, King David? He is that scum that used his position to coerce another man's wife to sleep with him. Then, when she ended up pregnant, he called her husband back from a battle the nation was fighting so the husband could sleep with his wife to deceive people into thinking the child was his. Then David sent the man back to battle with orders that assured his death to cover up the whole thing."

  The end result - David got to remain King, but wasn't allowed to build Jehovah's temple. Then, David was immortalized in the Bible and his family line brought forth the Messiah, Jesus.

  The fact of the matter is this - nothing any person can do can bring reproach on a god. So, what is actually happening here is this - Witnesses are being punished through shunning because they did something that might bring reproach on the ORGANIZATION. Even this is non-sensical because the organization never takes responsibility for its own faults. In word the organization says it is imperfect, it practice it holds itself out to be infallible.
• 

  Rocketman123

  Theological speaking from a Christian perspective if a person admits to their transgression (sin) and asks to be forgiven by his associated Christian brothers he should not be shunned.

  They (he) still has to face the laws of the land (Cesar's Laws)

  When Jesus Christ came to mankind it changed things for all of us, the JWS dont see and recognize that.
  
• 

  Rocketman123

  non-sensical because the organization never takes responsibility for its own faults.

  In word the organization says it is imperfect, it practice it holds itself out to be infallible.

  Yes quite bit of contravening double speak when you think about it.

  Sounds more like self imposed inherent hypocritical corruption.

  The reality is whenever the power of god is placed into men's hands a conundrum of confusion is presented for humanity.
  
• 

  truth_b_known

  Theological speaking from a Christian perspective if a person admits to their transgression (sin) and asks to be forgiven by his associated Christian brothers he should not be shunned.

  Exactly! If a person repents and stops committing the sin that is the end of it. There is no reputation to be upheld.
  
  
• 

  waton

  That shows how wrong it is to cloak yourself in a name or concept so lofty, that even the reputed "son of the deity", named "Jah is salvation" would not utter it. utterly wrong to name yourself that way,
• 

  jhine

  Paul speaks of " not eating " with such a person ie an unrepentant sinner . As l have said before l think this means not sharing the bread and wine with them .

  This, he said, is to give them chance to think of what they are losing , which is not being part of an organisation, but their salvation.

  So it's for the sake of the person's eternal life , not for the sake of the church .

  As has been said you can't bring reproach on God . So the WT basically seems to be throwing people to the lions just to protect itself. Of course if the person then in the due course of time goes crawling back , all well and good. They have distanced themselves from whatever they have done .

  Jan
• 

  carla

  How jw's decide if one is a jw or not is almost irrelevant in the outside world. So often if there is a news story or some local scandal involving a jw or even someone who just goes to a kh on a regular basis the jw in good standing will say, 'he/she isn't a real jw anyway'. News to jw's everywhere, if a person goes to a kh even on a semi regular basis without being baptized, people on the outside consider them a jw.
• 

  waton

  wt policy was, to disfellowship a person if there was "notoriety" public knowledge of a criminal act, even if the person was repentant.
• 

  Phizzy

  This business of "reproach on Jehovah's name" as has been pointed out means that the Org equates itself with Jehovah.

  Reproach upon the Org is what they are talking about really, so it makes it really strange that they have such a poor record in making sure reproach on the Org does not happen.

  The primary example of this is the Sex Abuse Scandal. If they had only done what they should, institute immediate Reporting to all appropriate Authorities, and set up an actual working Vulnerable Persons protection Programme, as all responsible Organizations do, they could have avoided much reptoach upon the Org, and more importantly avoided much of the abuse actually happening.

  THEY STILL HAVE NOT DONE THOSE TWO THINGS !!!! WHY ??

  The other area they fall down on is their woeful lack of any real Pastoral work, so many problems become Big problems, which if they had skilled Pastors actually caring for the flock, would have been dealt with before they grew to the point where someone has to be DF'd.
• 

  Biahi

  Yes, Carla, they use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.