Looking for reference to pre-1981 view of disfellowshipped family members

CaptainSchmideo

Can't find it through the normal searches on the 2001 CD (Gee, I wonder why...)

Thanks in advance!

garybuss

Guess I'm not sure what you are looking for. If I knew exactly, I may be able to help. This is from 1977.

The Watchtower, October 1, 1977 p. 600 The Christian Congregation and Its Operation

The elders of a congregation sit as required to hear cases in which there are disputes between members of the congregation, or in which charges of wrongdoing are involved. However, in this they are not to be viewed as harsh judges, but, rather, as loving brothers interested in the recovery of the wrongdoer. Their objective is to help those involved to work out their problem as God?s Word directs and to maintain the moral cleanness of the congregation, in harmony with the Scriptures. This assures God?s continued favor and also guards against reproach upon God?s congregation. (1 Pet. 2:15, 16) Mercy and the good spiritual standing of the congregation are therefore the primary factors. Every effort is made to ?gain? the erring one, helping him to readjust, to correct his way and get back into sound spiritual condition. (Matt. 18:15) However, if individuals seriously violate Scriptural principles and show no true repentance or inclination to turn away from a bad practice, the body of elders may act to ?disfellowship? the offender. This action is a dissociation or breaking off of spiritual fellowship and social intimacy.?1 Cor. 5:9-13.

Besides keeping the congregation free from the accusation of condoning wrongdoing, disfellowshiping may help the offender to come to his senses. (1 Tim. 1:20) Such a person, if he later repents and turns away from his wrong course and requests reinstatement, may be received back after the body of elders gives consideration to his changed course and attitude. (2 Cor. 2:5-8) While in the disfellowshiped state, the individual is not mistreated or abused, but is regarded in the way that Jesus counseled, ?as a man of the nations,? that is, as one who is among the outside world, not a member of the Christian congregation.?Matt. 18:17.

***

garybuss

The BIG change in Watch Tower Publishing Corporation family relationships was not from the shunning doctrine but the doctrine of "absolute spiritual endangerment".

Poztate

This issue affected my life greatly and still does to this day.Look to the aug1/74 wt. for the new and improved way of how to treat your relatives.I am suprised that they didn't just delete the whole thing.I mean who would notice.Of course the 81 wt and the aug 2002 km is now the only way to treat relatives.

The 2002 km in fact has an implied death threat towards all those who would not shun relatives.The last part says that a LOYAL JW will abide by the DF rules.If you don't that would make you in fact DISLOYAL. We all know what will happen to disloyal ones when the big "A " strikes.

Poztate

kj

I believe it is in the 1974 August (1st or 15th, not sure) issue of the WT. And yes, it's not listed in the index. Convenient for them, huh? Nasty cult.

kj

bebu

Could somebody please post that article here?

bebu

Brymichmom

On Free Minds there an article concerning disfellowshipping, http://www.freeminds.org/psych/disfell.htm; here is an excerpt:

"Oddly enough, in April of '74 they had seemingly relaxed the tension towards disfellowshiped persons. In the April l974 WT, for instance, on page 467, they said:

Congregation elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish Rabbinical writers fomented towards Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies.

The gist of the article was that disfellowshiped ones were not to be treated with unnecessary cruelty; especially members of one's family or those in obvious hardship situations. They stated that 'we don't want to be like Pharisees' who walked on the other side of the road when a Gentile was in trouble. (WT Aug. 1, 1974, p. 467.) "

With those references, you can probably find the complete articles you are looking for.

Cynthia

CaptainSchmideo

Thanks so much for the very prompt responses! Here is the article, as found in the 2001 CD Rom

The reason I was looking for this is my Sister in law has been d-fed, and my Mother-in-law, who is a strictly by the book Witness, feels so strongly about this that she won't allow my kids (my sis-in-laws nephews) to say hi to her, or hug her, after the letter is read this week. I was hoping I could present this to her in a "oh, look what further information I found about our situation" kind of way. Maybe this will temper her actions, maybe it won't. Either way, I get to show her how much of flip flop can happen in seven years...

***

w74 8/1 pp. 460-466 Divine Mercy Points the Way Back for Erring Ones ***

Divine

Mercy Points the Way Back for Erring Ones

"There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over ninety-nine righteous ones who have no need of repentance."?Luke 15:7.

JEHOVAH is a God of love, a merciful God. All his arrangements and instructions are for the good of those loving righteousness; they never have a selfish or harmful purpose. (Ex. 34:6; 1 John 4:8) He is also a God of righteousness and justice; he does not condone or ?wink at? wrongdoing. (Ps. 33:4, 5; 50:16-21) There is, however, no disharmony among these divine qualities. Genuine love, in fact, requires a holding to, and insisting on, righteousness.

2

Thus, among the arrangements found in God?s Word is that of disfellowshiping, that is, removing or expelling from the congregation persons who, though claiming to be Christians, engage in serious wrongdoing and who fail to show a genuinely repentant attitude. Their being put out is for the good of the congregation to maintain its purity and to protect its members, loved by God, from contamination through such a ?leavening? influence as the wrongdoers represent.

3

For this reason, the inspired apostle Paul instructed Christians in Corinth to "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. 5:6, 7, 11-13.

4

Does this, however, rule out thereafter the taking of any positive action toward such disfellowshiped ones, action that could contribute toward their repenting, turning around, returning and being restored as approved, clean members of the congregation? Must all positive action wait until such time as the individual formally expresses repentance to the congregation elders, making direct request for reinstatement? Would any giving whatsoever of exhortation to such a one to ?turn around? and seek restoration constitute a "mixing in company" with him and an engaging in spiritual fellowship with him? Let us see the answer the Bible indicates.

THE

EXAMPLE OF THE CHIEF ELDER

5

Consider the example of Jehovah God?s dealings with those who were once his name people, Israel. They alone of all the peoples on earth were in a covenant relationship with him and they only had been given his word and law. (Ps. 147:19, 20; Rom. 3:1, 2) They frequently proved unfaithful to him, however, and eventually reached the state described in the prayer recorded at Daniel 9:4-19: "We have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled; and there has been a turning aside from your commandments and from your judicial decisions. And we have not listened to your servants the prophets, who have spoken in your name to our kings, our princes and our forefathers and to all the people of the land."

6

Because of this turning aside and gross disobedience, Daniel says that Jehovah "poured out upon us the curse and the sworn oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of the true God . . . bringing upon us great calamity, such as was not done under the whole heavens." Yes, God took strong judicial action against them, casting first the northern tribes and then the southern tribes out of their land into exile, finally allowing the whole national structure to be overthrown by Babylon. Jehovah, in effect, ?divorced? himself from the national organization as if it were a "wife" of his and the "mother" of the individual members of the nation.?Compare Isaiah 50:1; 54:5, 6; Jeremiah 3:8.

7

Having taken this strong judicial action against them, did Jehovah thereafter refuse to do anything whatsoever that might contribute toward their being restored to his favor? No, but, instead, he directed words of reproof to them, exhorting them to abandon the wrong course that had led to their disaster. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God said, evidently to those of the rejected northern kingdom of Israel: "Do return, O renegade Israel, . . . I shall not stay resentful to time indefinite. Only take note of your error, for it is against Jehovah your God that you have transgressed. . . . Return, you renegade sons. I shall heal your renegade condition."?Jer. 3:12, 13, 22; compare Lamentations 3:31-33; Isaiah 57:16-18.

8

This expression harmonizes with Jehovah?s statement through the prophet Ezekiel, where he expresses his attitude toward those who still show possibility of repentance: "Do I take any delight at all in the death of someone wicked, . . . and not in that he should turn back from his ways and actually keep living? . . . Throw off from yourselves all your transgressions in which you have transgressed and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, for why should you die, O house of Israel? For I do not take any delight in the death of someone dying . . . So cause a turning back and keep living, O you people."?Ezek. 18:23, 30-32.

9

By exhorting these wrongdoers in this way, was Jehovah God having spiritual fellowship with them, a "sharing" of spiritual good things together as among friends? (Compare 1 John 1:3, 6, 7.) To the contrary, as Jehovah had earlier told them by the prophet Isaiah, if they wanted his friendship again they would have to change. He would not lower himself to walk in their wrong ways and adopt their wrong thoughts. He said: "Search for Jehovah, you people, . . . Let the wicked man leave his way, and the harmful man his thoughts; and let him return to Jehovah, who will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will forgive in a large way. ?For the thoughts of you people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways,? is the utterance of Jehovah. ?For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.?" (Isa. 55:6-9) To enjoy sweet fellowship with God again, they would have to raise their thoughts and ways back up to the righteous levels to which God adheres and which his Word teaches. Thus they would heed his urging to ?come and let us set matters straight between us,? so that their gross sins might be viewed by him as blotted out.?Isa. 1:18, 19.

10

The parable of the prodigal son provides further insight into Jehovah?s admirable attitude of mercy and considerateness. (Luke 15:11-32) The reaction of the father in the parable upon the return of his wayward son exemplifies in a very appealing way what the heavenly Father, Jehovah, is like. In the parable, the son had left home, gone far off and squandered his time and money in a debauched life, including keeping company with harlots. He came into poverty and hunger and, jolted to his senses, he decided to return to his father. Note, now, what the parable says: "While he was yet a long way off, his father caught sight of him and was moved with pity, and he ran and fell upon his neck and tenderly kissed him."?Luke 15:20.

11

Thus, when catching sight of his son in the distance, the father did not say: ?I am not going to move an inch or say one word until that sinner comes right to my feet and formally requests to be accepted back.? No, but seeing his son heading toward him and, in effect, discerning what was in his son?s mind, the father went to meet him. It was?not before?but after this fatherly expression of pity that the son?s formal asking of forgiveness took place.

12

This calls to mind the apostle Paul?s reference to "the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance." (Rom. 2:4) Yes, Jehovah God expresses righteous anger at wrongdoing. But he does not remain angry forever if the wrongdoing ceases. He knows that warm mercy has marvelous drawing qualities to bring repentant wrongdoers back to the point where they can be healed.?Hos. 6:1; 14:1, 2, 4.

13

We today therefore do not want to be like the elder brother of the parable who at first was not at all happy with the way his errant brother was received back. (Luke 15:25-32) Rather, we will seek to ?prove ourselves sons of our heavenly Father? by imitating Jehovah?s compassionate example. (Matt. 5:44-48) He, as the God of eternity and the "Ancient of Days," is the Chief Elder, the Great Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. (1 Pet. 2:25) His example is always the right one to follow. We will see later in our discussion how that example can guide us in many practical ways.?Ps. 77:7-9; 103:9, 10, 13.

ONE?S

BEING VIEWED AS "A MAN OF THE NATIONS AND AS A TAX COLLECTOR"

14

Paul when writing his apostolic counsel to Corinth regarding disfellowshiping, had earlier inspired information on which to base his instructions. Christ Jesus himself had supplied this. Matthew 18:15-17 records his instructions for handling sins (clearly not just petty trespasses but sins of genuine gravity) committed against individuals. He set out the possibility of a disfellowshiping action where no repentance was manifested on the part of the sinning one. After describing progressive efforts made to ?gain? such a one through getting him to acknowledge his wrong and repent of it, Jesus said: "If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

15

At this time (32 C.E.) the Christian congregation had not been formed and so the "congregation" referred to by Jesus must relate to the Jewish arrangement then existing, with its bodies of elders, including those serving as judges and representing the congregation locally in such capacity. (Ezra 10:14; Luke 7:3) Nevertheless, Jesus? instructions certainly provided a guiding principle that would aid the future Christian congregation. Of particular interest to us is knowing what the unrepentant sinner?s being viewed "as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" would imply. To find out we need to consider how such ones were properly viewed by the Jewish congregation. This will aid us to understand better the apostle?s instructions at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 as to how Christians should view those disfellowshiped by the Christian congregation.

16

In considering the Jewish attitude toward those of the nations, we cannot be guided entirely by rabbinical writings that were composed after the time Jesus was on earth. Some of these writings display an extreme attitude, one of virtual hatred and contempt toward "Gentiles," people of the nations. Some rabbinical writings held that a Jew should not come to the rescue of a Gentile even when such a one was in peril of death. (Maimonides, Rozeach. iv, 12; McClintock and Strong?s Cyclopædia, Vol. III, p. 789) Rather, we can find reliable information in God?s inspired Scriptures to guide us in ascertaining the attitude of first-century Jews.

17

When sent to the home of the Gentile Cornelius in Caesarea, the apostle Peter said to those there gathered: "You well know how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself to or approach a man of another race; and yet God has shown me I should call no man defiled or unclean." (Acts 10:27, 28) When Peter later went to Jerusalem, supporters of circumcision in the Christian congregation there contended with him, "saying he had gone into the house of men that were not circumcised and had eaten with them." (Acts 11:2, 3) Thus, the basic position of the Jews was that they were not to fraternize with the Gentiles, viewing them as spiritually unclean. They were such due to being "alienated from the state of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise," hence having no real standing or approved relationship with Jehovah God. (Eph. 2:11, 12) To fraternize with them, entering their homes and eating with them, would bring spiritual defilement on the Jews.?Compare John 18:28; Galatians 2:11-14.

18

Jesus Christ adhered to this basic rule of refraining from fraternizing with people of the nations. And he instructed his disciples that in their preaching activity they should "not go off into the road of the nations [Gentiles], and do not enter into a Samaritan city; but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10:5, 6) Yet, notwithstanding all of this, Jesus showed no approval of, or conformity to, the extreme view found in rabbinical writings that counted all Gentiles as enemies to be treated with virtual contempt?even as he did not let such attitudes control his dealings with Samaritans. (John 4:4-40) Far from this, Jesus cited his Father?s prophetic Word to show that people of the nations would accept the Messiah, that the temple was to be a house of prayer for all nations, and that the Messiah would prove to be a light to the nations. (Matt. 12:18, 21; Mark 11:17; compare Luke 2:27-32; Acts 13:47.) When a Gentile army officer, who had shown great kindness to the Jews, asked Jesus to heal a sick slave, Jesus did so. (Luke 7:2-10) So, while never going contrary to the admonition of the Mosaic law concerning fraternizing with those not of God?s congregation (Gentiles), Jesus did not become unbalanced, extreme or rigidly hard, adopting an antagonistic attitude toward these. He wisely discerned the principles contained in God?s instructions and was guided by them.

19

So, too, with the tax collectors, usually not Gentiles but Jews. Because they were so often dishonest, tax collectors were generally viewed by their fellow Jews as persons of bad reputation, to be classed with known sinners and harlots. (Matt. 9:10, 11; 21:31, 32) While not condoning their wrong ways, Jesus did not hold back from helping such ones when they showed an inclination toward righteousness, as did such tax collectors as Matthew Levi and Zacchaeus. Because he aided such to make spiritual progress, Jesus was falsely accused of being a "friend of tax collectors and sinners." There was a difference, however, between friendship and Jesus? efforts to heal those who were spiritually sick and to direct them to repentance and into the path of righteousness.?Matt. 11:19; Luke 5:27-36; 19:2-10.

20

Thus, Jesus? own example protects us against adopting the extreme view of certain rabbinical writers in this matter of dealing with persons as "a man of the nations and as a tax collector." We see, too, a close similarity between the treatment accorded these and the treatment set forth in the apostle Paul?s instructions regarding those disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation, namely, not "mixing in company" with such ones nor "even eating" with them. (1 Cor. 5:11) Clearly, treating an unrepentant sinner as "a man of the nations and as a tax collector" means there should be no fraternizing with such a one. But, as Jesus? example shows, this does not require our treating such a one as an enemy or refusing to show common courtesy and consideration. Nor does it rule out the giving of help to those who want to correct a wrong course and gain or regain God?s favor.

GETTING

THE SENSE OF 2 JOHN 9-11

21

In his second letter, the apostle John gives this exhortation: "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God [that is, is not in union with him, has no fellowship with him; compare 1 John 1:6]. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 9-11) Do the apostle?s words here necessarily apply to all persons who are put out of the congregation for wrongdoing? Or do they necessarily rule out any speaking of words of reproof or exhortation to a disfellowshiped person designed to move him toward repenting, turning around and being restored to the congregation? By considering the context of those words of the apostle we can have a clearer understanding of the sense of his exhortation.

22

Note that in verse seven the apostle John says that "many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." Then John gives the warning to be on guard and not to receive such ones into one?s home, for these are active propagandists of false teachings, deceitful advocates of wrong conduct. They should be given no foothold from which to make further infiltration. One should not even greet them, so as to avoid being a sharer in their wicked works. In this regard, we may note that the common greeting among Jews in apostolic times was an expression meaning "May you have peace." The Christian certainly would not want to wish peace to the man who was a deceiver and an antichrist. There is, however, nothing to show that Jews with a balanced and Scriptural viewpoint would refuse to greet a "man of the nations" or a tax collector. Jesus? counsel about greetings, in connection with his exhortation to imitate God in his undeserved kindness toward "wicked people and good," would seem to rule against such a rigid stand.?Matt. 5:45-48.

23

Are, then, all who have been disfellowshiped like the persons described in John?s second letter? At the time that they had to be disfellowshiped they were apparently following a course like such ones or at least manifesting a similar sentiment. As the publication Organization for Kingdom-preaching and Disciple-making says on page 172: "Any baptized person who deliberately pursues a course of immoral conduct is actually rejecting the teachings of the Bible, just as much so as one who teaches others contrary to what the Scriptures say about the identity of God, the provision of the ransom, the resurrection, and so forth. (Compare Titus 3:10, 11; 2 Timothy 2:16-19.)" And, if after being disfellowshiped a person tried to justify his immorality before others and sought to sway others to his perverted thinking, he certainly would fit the description given by the apostle John in his second letter.

24

However, not all who are disfellowshiped thereafter follow the course of such ?deceivers and antichrists.? They do not all engage in actively promoting wrongdoing, opposing the truth and endeavoring to deceive others into following the wrong course that led to their disfellowshiping. This is seen by the number who repentantly seek and receive reinstatement as approved members of the congregation. Thus, in the United States (where there are now more than half a million Christian witnesses of Jehovah), during the ten-year period from 1963 to 1973, 36,671 persons had to be disfellowshiped for various kinds of serious wrongdoing. Yet, in that same period 14,508 persons were reinstated, accepted back into the congregations owing to their sincere repentance. This is nearly 40 percent of the total. Certainly we on earth should rejoice with Jehovah and his heavenly family over this fact.?Luke 15:7.

25

What, if anything, can be done to aid yet more of those who have been disfellowshiped?but who are not following the course of the ?antichrists? described by John?to be restored to the congregation? Let us see how the Scriptural principles considered apply in a practical way.

***

w74 8/1 pp. 466-473 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***

Maintaining

a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones

A LITTLE leaven can ferment a whole lump of dough. So too can immoral influence infiltrate and corrupt a whole congregation. Rightly, any congregation should want to protect itself against such influence, and the elders of the congregation especially should be concerned with doing this.?1 Cor. 5:6; Acts 20:28-30.

2

There is real danger in being lax in this matter, as the congregation in Corinth was lax toward a wrongdoer in their midst, failing to take action to clear out such ?leavening? influence. But there is a parallel danger. What? That of going too far in the other direction, going from laxity to rigidity and hardness.

3

We may note the warning given by the apostle Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, evidently (according to the context) in connection with the sinner described in his first letter whom it had been necessary to ?remove from among them.? (1 Cor. 5:1-5, 13) In that case this wrongdoer apparently had repented. After speaking of the congregation?s forgiving this one for the sadness he had caused them congregationally, Paul went on to say, "that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs." (2 Cor. 2:5-11) What did the apostle mean by this?

4

Satan?s "designs" are to devour any of God?s servants that he can, and he goes about "like a roaring lion" to accomplish that aim. (1 Pet. 5:8) The man who had been disfellowshiped in Corinth had been ?handed over? to Satan in the sense that he had been put out of the congregation and thus was thrust out into the world under Satan?s domain. (1 Cor. 5:5; Acts 26:18; 1 John 5:19) Like a "little leaven" in the "whole lump" of dough, this man had been "the flesh" or fleshly element inside the congregation; and by removing this incestuous man the spiritually minded congregation had destroyed the "flesh" from the midst of it. Now Satan?s design or aim would be to hold on to such prey until succeeding in completely swallowing up the man, destroying him spiritually. If the congregation, though in all good conscience, were to be overly cautious and reluctant about receiving the now truly repentant wrongdoer back, delaying unnecessarily his reinstatement, this would suit the Adversary?s purpose. (Compare 2 Corinthians 2:7.) So, other translations of 2 Corinthians 2:11 read: "For Satan must not be allowed to get the better of us; we know his wiles all too well." (New English Bible) "And so we will not be outwitted by Satan?we know well enough what his intentions are [what he is after, Goodspeed]."?Jerusalem Bible.

5

Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way. As noted earlier, some rabbinical writings held that, even if in peril of death, no assistance should be extended to Gentiles. Suppose, then, a member of a Christian congregation boating on a lake were to see another boat containing a disfellowshiped person capsize, throwing the disfellowshiped one into the water where he struggled to stay afloat. Could the Christian ignore that one?s peril, row away and feel free from guilt before God?inasmuch as the one in danger of drowning was disfellowshiped, viewed as "a man of the nations"? Certainly not. That would be cruel and inhumane. We cannot imagine Christ Jesus doing so; nor would any other Jew of the first century who had a balanced viewpoint have reacted that way toward a Gentile or a tax collector in such a plight.

6

But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.

7

If we imitate our heavenly Father we will remember that he even showed certain considerateness toward the first human pair after their disfellowshiping in Eden, providing them with clothing. (Gen. 3:21) This was an undeserved kindness toward them. As Jesus reminded his disciples, Jehovah God "makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45) The apostle Paul showed that, despite the independent course the Gentile nations took contrary to God?s way, Jehovah "did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving [them] rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling [their] hearts to the full with food and good cheer." (Acts 14:16, 17) So, not "mixing in company" with a person, or treating such one as "a man of the nations," does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane.

WHAT

SPIRITUAL FELLOWSHIPING INVOLVES

8

The Greek expression used by Paul for "mixing in company with" is the verb syn·a·na·mi´gny·mi, meaning "to mix or mingle together." The basic verb involved (mi´gny·mi) is used at Matthew 27:34 to describe the mixing of wine with gall and at Luke 13:1 to describe Pilate?s mixing blood with sacrifices. So it involves a real merging or blending, a uniting into a combination or compound. For us to ?mix in company? with others would imply a fellowship existing among us. The English term "fellowship" has the sense of "comradeship; companionship; friendliness," there being a "community [or, common and mutual sharing] of interest, sentiment, etc." (The World Book Dictionary) So, to fellowship with another means accepting the other person as on an equal standing with oneself, being interested in and entertaining his views, sharing these with an open and favorable attitude. To have spiritual fellowship with another would be, in effect, to have a spiritual ?good time? together. But when we exhort a person to repentance we are not uniting ourselves with him in an amicable union; we are not sharing with him any improper attitude and sentiment he may have shown but, rather, are dealing with him as a person in need of correction.

9

What, then, if a congregation elder were to meet up with a person who had been disfellowshiped, perhaps in the elder?s daily routine, on the street, in his secular work or similar activity? Would the elder be acting out of harmony with the congregation?s disfellowshiping action if he spoke to this one, urging him or her to ?turn around? and seek reconciliation again with his heavenly Father? Circumstances would govern. Of course, if the disfellowshiped one were following a course like those false teachers and propagandists described at 2 John 7-11, deliberately trying to influence others into false beliefs or immoral practices, the elder would want nothing to do with such a one. But not all who slip into a sinful way become ?deceivers and antichrists.? So, if that one is not of that class, would not Jehovah God?s own example allow for the elder to speak words exhorting the disfellowshiped one to seek to regain a good standing with God? Rather than being out of harmony with the disfellowshiping, by his words of exhortation the elder actually would show his support of such disfellowshiping action as having been right and needed.

10

We may note, too, that at 1 Corinthians 5:11 the apostle warns against mixing in company with one who "is" a fornicator or practicer of some other kind of serious wrongdoing. What, however, of the one who has been disfellowshiped for being that kind of person but who thereafter, either at an early point or at a later point in time, gives consistent evidence of discontinuing such wrong practice, stopping it? Can it be said that he or she still "is" a fornicator or whatever type of wrongdoer such a one was that caused him or her to be as "leaven" toward the congregation?

11

For example, a young person disfellowshiped for fornication may thereafter marry, raise a family and live a respectable life. Or one who was disfellowshiped for drunkenness may abandon such practice and, if drinking at all, may do so in moderation only. By such changes these individuals may now regain the respect of the community. Such ones may not yet have come and formally sought reinstatement by the congregation. Is there, however, not an evident difference between these and others who continue right on in the wrongdoing that brought their disfellowshiping? Those giving up the wrong practice may still manifest some appreciation for Christian truth, perhaps even defending the true Christian congregation when someone speaks evil against it. Should not such circumstances be given due weight and have an effect on our attitude as a congregation toward such ones?

12

Surely if the prodigal son of the parable had returned home in a drunken state, perhaps dragging along one of his harlot companions, the father?s reaction would not have been the same. But the father had reason to believe that the son was approaching with a right motive and, rather than suspect the worst, the father hoped the best and went out to meet his errant son.

13

Today, too, we want to realize that one of the best evidences of repentance is not just in words, formally stated, but in actions. (Compare 1 John 3:18.) Thus, when certain ones came to John the Baptist (who was baptizing persons in symbol of repentance for forgiveness of sins), John did not view their formal action as the most important factor or all that was needed. Rather, he told them to go and "produce fruits that befit repentance," citing for them examples of such fruit or good works, such as showing merciful generosity, abandoning cheating and extortion, abstaining from harassment or false testimony against others. (Matt. 3:7, 8; Luke 3:7-14) The apostle Paul similarly exhorted people to "repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance." (Acts 26:20) Thus, when a person who was disfellowshiped ceases the wrong practice that caused the congregation to remove him as "leaven," this change may be viewed as at least some indication that he is ?turning around? and repenting of his previous course.?Acts 3:19.

14

The one who was disfellowshiped may also give some evidence of ?fruit befitting repentance? by coming to Christian meetings that are open to the public. Again, if he or she comes there to argue in favor of or justify a wrong course and to try to win others over to an unscriptural viewpoint, such a one fits the description at 2 John 7-11. But where there is no attempt to do this, it would not be out of harmony with Scriptural counsel for an elder to approach such a one (perhaps on noting his or her presence at meetings a number of times) and to speak words of exhortation with a view to effecting a spiritual healing and full restoration as an approved member of the congregation.?Jas. 5:19, 20.

15

In some cases the one who was disfellowshiped may have a real handicap in getting to such Christian meetings, though having the desire to do so. The meeting place may be a considerable distance away and may not be served by public transportation. Or other personal or perhaps physical circumstances may prove a severe obstacle to attending meetings. In one case, a woman who had been disfellowshiped spent eight dollars in taxi fare to get to one meeting. She informed the elders that she wanted to attend but was financially unable to continue coming at such expense. She even demonstrated the genuineness of her desire one Sunday by walking the entire distance. If members of the congregation were to see such a one walking such a long distance to the meeting place and had space in their automobile to accommodate her, would it not be the humane thing to assist her?

16

Of course, where there is no evidence of "fruits that befit repentance" and the individual is still known to be carrying on in an immoral course, this would alter matters, inasmuch as the providing of transportation or similar regular aid to such a one could prove a cause of reproach to the congregation with the community. For that reason, where congregation members know of someone who has been disfellowshiped and who apparently needs and desires assistance to be able to attend meetings, they would do well to seek the counsel of the congregation elders before arranging for such themselves.?1 Pet. 2:12; 3:16.

WITHIN

THE FAMILY CIRCLE

17

Since blood and marital relationships are not dissolved by a congregational disfellowshiping action, the situation within the family circle requires special consideration. A woman whose husband is disfellowshiped is not released from the Scriptural requirement to respect his husbandly headship over her; only death or Scriptural divorce from a husband results in such release. (Rom. 7:1-3; Mark 10:11, 12) A husband likewise is not released from loving his wife as "one flesh" with him even though she should be disfellowshiped. (Matt. 19:5, 6; Eph. 5:28-31) Parents similarly remain under the injunction to ?go on bringing up their children in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah? even though a baptized son or a daughter yet a minor is disfellowshiped. (Eph. 6:4) And sons and daughters, of whatever age, remain under the obligation to ?honor their father and mother? although one or both of these may be disfellowshiped. (Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2) This is not difficult to understand when we consider that, according to the Scriptures, even political officials of this world are to be shown due honor by Christians.?Rom. 13:1, 7.

18

Family members can carry out these Scriptural obligations and yet not show themselves out of harmony with a congregational action disfellowshiping one of the family circle. This they do by not spiritually fellowshiping with such a one. But how, then, can parents carry out the injunction to discipline their children in harmony with God?s Word when one of their children is disfellowshiped? They can still use God?s Word or other publications that discuss the Bible in training the son or daughter, but they use these in a corrective manner, not as though having a spiritual ?good time? with such a one in the way they could with the other children. How this is handled is for the parents to decide. This does not call for unkindness, but they do not accord such disfellowshiped son or daughter the same approved spiritual relationship granted the others. The disfellowshiped son or daughter should be encouraged to attend the family study of the Bible in order to receive the "mental-regulating of Jehovah."

19

Similarly, when one?s mate is disfellowshiped, the other mate, as "one flesh" with such a one, may rightly do what he or she can to lead such a one to repentance and restoration in the congregation. The refraining from spiritual fellowship would not rule out use of the Bible or publications explaining the Bible, for, as we have seen, fellowshiping implies a mutuality of sentiment and viewpoint, a comradely equality. If the mate in good standing uses God?s Word or publications based on it as a purely restorative and corrective means, this would not constitute such fellowship. Thus a husband who was planning to do some reading of Scriptural material might encourage a disfellowshiped wife to listen to his reading thereof. Or a wife whose husband was disfellowshiped might ask him if he would be willing to listen while she did such reading. Of course, discussion may result from such reading. If so, the refraining from fellowship in a spiritual way is maintained by seeing to it that there is no sharing of any wrong sentiment or attitude manifested by the disfellowshiped one nor any willingness to accept any condoning of the wrong action that led to his or her being disfellowshiped. (See the book Organization for Kingdom-preaching and Disciple-making, page 173.)

20

In some cases a minor son or daughter may be disfellowshiped for some immoral course and may leave home. Later, such a one may reconsider and ask for permission to return home. Whether this will be allowed is for the parents, particularly the father, to decide. Where the son or daughter expresses willingness to respect parental headship, the father may decide to allow such return and use it as a means for attaining the possible rehabilitation of the son or daughter. If the father is an elder or ministerial servant, this would not necessarily require his being removed from such position as long as he still maintains the respect of the congregation. Of course, if the son or daughter wanted to return and still continue in the immoral practice that led to the disfellowshiping, the father would hardly be looking well to the spiritual interests of his family if he allowed such a source of spiritual contamination to come back into the family circle. This would properly place in doubt his qualifications for any position of responsibility in the congregation.?1 Tim. 3:4, 5, 12.

21

As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that "leaven" is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such "leaven." Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one?s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.

22

In some cases where a disfellowshiped parent is aged or in bad health and needs care, the son or daughter might feel it advisable to bring such a parent into the home to fulfill proper filial obligations. So, too, Christian parents of a disfellowshiped son or daughter who is no longer a minor might decide to take such a one back into the home due to that one?s having a grave health problem or having been incapacitated in an accident or being in a destitute state financially. These are humanitarian decisions that Christian families must make and the congregational elders are not required to intervene where there is no sound evidence of a reintroduction of a corrupting influence within the congregation.

23

Even where relatives are involved, however, when a disfellowshiped one uses his or her family ties as a means to carry on activity like that described at 2 John 7-11, his Christian relatives properly deny such a one entrance to their homes, informing the disfellowshiped one instead that he or she is not welcome since the visit is for the purpose of advancing wrong beliefs or conduct.?Jude 3, 4; compare Deuteronomy 13:6-8.

24

Where fleshly relationships are not involved, congregation members will do well to appreciate the advisability of letting the elders, as shepherds of the flock, bear the prime responsibility for exhorting or working toward the rehabilitation of disfellowshiped ones who, though in a sense still ?quite a way off? like the returning prodigal son, nevertheless, give evidence of desiring to take a right course. In some cases the elders may feel that certain ones could aid in the rehabilitation of a disfellowshiped one, perhaps owing to their having been instrumental in originally aiding that one to come to a knowledge of Bible truth.

BENEFITS

OF A BALANCED VIEWPOINT

25

Holding to the Scriptures, neither minimizing what they say nor reading into them something they do not say, will enable us to keep a balanced view toward disfellowshiped ones. We will ever keep in mind the reason for disfellowshiping, to keep the congregation pure and approved by God, free from corrupting influence. Such "leaven" would cause the whole "lump," the congregation, to ?ferment? spiritually. So the congregation in effect "destroys" this sinful fleshly influence from its midst by putting the unrepentant wrongdoer outside in the world dominated by Satan, doing so in order that the "spirit," the dominant outlook, feeling and motivation, of the congregation may be preserved, saved.?1 Cor. 5:5.

26

At the same time a balanced viewpoint will keep us reflecting harmoniously the divine qualities of our heavenly Father, who is both righteous and merciful. Those who may have been disfellowshiped and whose hearts sincerely move them to want to return will therefore feel no reason to be hesitant or doubtful as to the way their efforts to return will be received. They will not fear being rebuffed in coldness or indifference. They will realize that their situation is not hopeless and that the congregation elders will helpfully show them what they need to do to regain an approved standing in the congregation of God?s people and to enjoy fully all its benefits. Where elders have real reason to believe that some disfellowshiped ones in the area served by the congregation are in ignorance of such provisions, they may feel it advisable to communicate this information to them.

27

True, to regain an approved standing in the congregation will require a genuine manifestation of humility on the part of the one who was disfellowshiped. (Isa. 57:15; Jas. 4:8-10) But life itself is at stake and, with the "acceptable time" of God?s goodwill and tolerance now drawing so short, they certainly will not want to let pride keep them from turning to their heavenly Father and seeking a good standing with him again and full association with his spiritual children or prospective children in their happy family relationship. (2 Cor. 6:1, 2) They will instead be grateful to God that he has made such merciful provisions for forgiveness and restoration and recognize that ?this kindly quality of God is trying to lead them to repentance.??Rom. 2:4.

Flowerpetal

I remember this article and studying it in the KH. Even though I had no d'fd. relatives, I was encouraged by it because of the way it mentioned how to treat HUMANELY, those who are d'fd. that might need our help once in a while, in certain situations. This is still my attitude today, despite the flip-flop of the attitude 7 years later on how to treat d'fd. ones.

I have to say my congregation is good about elders exhorting df'd ones. I have seen them on many occasion, talk to them as a means of encouragement. Also a sister would drive a d'fd person to the meetings in her car after getting approval by the elders. So I would have to say, if my congregation is like this, there are others as well in this country and around the world. Not all have pharisical attitudes.

Captain, your mother-in-law needs to be brought to realize that the children did not commit any wrongdoing so her refusal to have anything to do with them is shameful.

bebu

Thanks, Cap'n!

That is quite an amazing piece. I think I'd have some MAJOR struggles reading this, if I were your mom. I do hope that she does, with a resulting epiphany.

bebu

Looking for reference to pre-1981 view of disfellowshipped family members

Share this