When Reinstated...NO APPLAUSE!

by Disengaged 32 Replies latest jw friends

Sam Beli

Let me make an observation as one who was involved with this very issue some years ago. Believe me, I am no Watchtower apologist! However, this is one practice that I can defend, to a point. Consider the following actual case:
Spouse has an on-going affair with another and leaves mate. The elders are fond of the adulterous spouse, because this one has been popular for years in the congregation. The elders assume that this popular witness must have been driven to the adultery by some action of the other mate, though no such evidence is presented and no such claim is made by the adulterous mate. The guilty mate is so popular that it is weeks and weeks after a letter of confession is written by the guilty party before any disfellowshipping action is taken. Even then, the elders are wringing their hands and trying desperately to find a reason to NOT disfellowship this witness.
In only THREE (3) months the guilty mate is reinstated! This is record time in the JW world. Why so soon? Again, because of the immense popularity of this individual. When this reinstatement announcement was read there was clapping and an elder immediately began to plan for a party to welcome this one back.
The offended mate was not pleased by the celebratory atmosphere surrounding this return. Why? Because the guilty mate had a lot to prove yet. It was obvious to any thinking observer that 3 months was not enough time for the guilty mate to have become remorseful, turned around, proved repentance and proved that the unfaithfulness was over.
The clapping went on, the party went on, and a few weeks later that mate showed serious signs of slipping back into the previous immoral behavior. A little later on that mate was again disfellowshipped!
Some celebrations are premature. In the above real life case the innocent mate knew more than the elders did and wished that the congregation would have had the wisdom to wait for a period of time to see how this mate faired under the stress of time.
Even Brooklyn gets one right once in a while.
Regards,
Sam Beli
zev

I think next time a j- dub is reinstated i will----bite my toungue.
i just read your post sam, and couldn't agree more, with the actual experience told, cheering and partying was a bit premature.
i rememeber when this policy changed. mid 80's this dub thinks, and everytime some spastic, pill popping, mental degenerate, {wait...thats most dubs, no?} we would sit and shake out dub controlled heads in disbelief that a qualude popping dub had the balls to sit there and clap.
if i went crossed the system in anyway at this point it would only be because i have to do exactly what is not wanted or expected. because....
i have to.
Gramps
__
Zev
Now feeling the pain of sitting on the pickets class.
orbison

as i recall about 15 yrs ago we were admonished about this,,as the newly re instated person was only doing what they should be doing,,,so why adulate them
wendy
AGuest

Sorry, Sam, but you are in error... (may you have peace!)
That WTBTS was 'dead' wrong... from day one. Why?
First, they had no 'authority' to disfellowship to begin with. What SHOULD have happened is stated at Matthew 18:15-18. It should have started with the wife, and if SHE felt him repentant, then SHE was to forgive him... and that would have been the end of it. If not, then it lied with whatever others she took 'with' her, and if THEY felt he was repentnat, if they 'gained' him... then THEY should have simply forgiven him. And, if he STILL didn't listen, it should finally have layed within the hands of the ENTIRE congregation. If he repented, they should have ALL 'rejoiced'. And if not, he was to become 'like the world and tax collectors', which meant they STILL owed him love... but not 'accolades'. (Matthew 5:43-48).
That is what should have happened FIRST, then, there would have been no NEED for 'reinstatement'.
But, as with earthling man who attempt to sit in judgment of one another, such judgment is fallible. Ones who ARE truly repentant are judged unworthy and receive no joyful reception, and ones who have NOT repented in their hearts, are deemed favorable based on popularity... and receive accolades.
And so what? For with regard to such injustices, Israel is 'loving it'... aren't they?
Again, too bad... too bad.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
philo

Sam Beli
Sorry Sam, but I think you are wrong to say Brooklyn have got THIS one right, dead wrong.
First, there are scriptural reasons (see above) to rejoice over a repentee, even if he/she came back for selfish reasons (see prodigal).
Second, I could easily quote you real, as well as plausible but fictitious, cases to show how awful the welcoming silence at the hall is. So your example doesn't show that Brooklyn got it right.
How often is the human desire to delight in the return of a lost friend suppressed, in the congregation? Most times in my experience. And for why? because of a blanket, unnecessary policy which presumes to dictate to human emotions. I have no problem with applause when people are happy, or silence if people are doubtful about a returnee. I have no problem with a mixture of the two. If a welcome party is arranged for a returnee and nobody comes, that's fine. But when a totalitarian gerantocrazy has imposed itself on the hearts of the people who know best: that's the brothers and sisters who knew, know, and probably still care about the person they have been shunning, this is entirely WRONG!
I would love to know that after reading this you have revised you opinion. Not to flatter my vanity, but for your own sake. What? Am I getting pompous again. I CAN do that.
philo
philo

Aguest,
I can't believe it! Do you believe in cyber telepathy? Spooky. LOL
philo
SixofNine

I have to agree with those who see it differently Sam. What you described sounds like a rare case, mishandled by the elders (not that there is anything rare about that), and exacerbated by a congregation full of unloving people. Well, I suppose they had love for the popular bro, but not nearly enough for his spouse, or, for that matter, their own doctrine.
On reflection, they (JW's) are just people. My conclusion is that the Bible doesn't work for "people". Not that the "people" who make up the organization really try their damnedest to even take and use the absolute best that one can take from the Bible.
Sam Beli

Dear SJ
You said: “Sorry, Sam, but you are in error”
We’ll see.
You went on to say: “That WTBTS was 'dead' wrong... from day one. Why?
First, they had no 'authority' to disfellowship to begin with.”
I totally agree. However Dfing was not the topic of this thread. Clapping upon reinstatement was the topic.
Next you said: “What SHOULD have happened is stated at Matthew 18:15-18. It should have started with the wife, and if SHE felt him repentant, then SHE was to forgive him... and that would have been the end of it.”
I agree with part of what you said above, the Matt 18 part. In the rest of your statement you made the same mistake that Watchtower editors frequently make – that of assuming that the adulterous spouse was the “HE” of this marriage. I was careful to use non gender specific words to describe this particular situation.
With respect to the remainder of your post I agree with the spirit of what you say regarding the need for each of us to decide without input from a judicial committee how we will view and treat others.
Dear Philo,
You said: “Sorry Sam, but I think you are wrong to say Brooklyn have got THIS one right, dead wrong.”
Well, I’m still alive
“First, there are scriptural reasons (see above) to rejoice over a repentee, even if he/she came back for selfish reasons (see prodigal).”
If you choose to clap that is fine with me.

"Second, I could easily quote you real, as well as plausible but fictitious, cases to show how awful the welcoming silence at the hall is. So your example doesn't show that Brooklyn got it right."
OK, maybe you have a point (at times). Doesn’t this really illustrate the need to let individuals make their own choices about these matters?
“How often is the human desire to delight in the return of a lost friend suppressed, in the congregation? Most times in my experience. And for why? because of a blanket, unnecessary policy which presumes to dictate to human emotions.”
I retired from the JW world before the present policy went into effect, so I have not witnessed the situations of which you speak
“I have no problem with applause when people are happy, or silence if people are doubtful about a returnee. I have no problem with a mixture of the two. If a welcome party is arranged for a returnee and nobody comes, that's fine. But when a totalitarian gerantocrazy has imposed itself on the hearts of the people who know best: that's the brothers and sisters who knew, know, and probably still care about the person they have been shunning, this is entirely WRONG!”
Agreed, the above position makes sense! I was in a congregation what had more than its share of unsavory characters (many of them elders) and my view of things hardened over time. I’m sure that it could be very different in other areas.
“What? Am I getting pompous again. I CAN do that.
Philo”
Maybe, but it seems that you have a reasonable position and I can admit that my first statement was too narrow and didn’t take into consideration different circumstances in other locations. In other words, I know that many have been DF’d that never disserved it, if indeed any should have been.
I appreciate your well reasoned response.
Dear SixofNine
You said: “I have to agree with those who see it differently Sam. What you described sounds like a rare case, mishandled by the elders (not that there is anything rare about that), and exacerbated by a congregation full of unloving people. Well, I suppose they had love for the popular bro, but not nearly enough for his spouse, or, for that matter, their own doctrine.”
Note that you too assumed the sex of the spouse (and in error I might add). Otherwise, I agree with your statement.
Regards,
Sam Beli
AGuest

Dearest Sam... may you have peace!
You are ABSOLUTELY right... I made an assumption... and a very poor one at that. There was absolutely NO reason why I should have assumed it was the man who committed the wrong. I digress in sackcloth and ashes, and THANK you for your loving correction.
I bid you peace.... and I am...
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SJ
Sam Beli

Dear SJ,
Now cut that out. I about split my sides reading your response!
Warm regards,
Sam Beli

When Reinstated...NO APPLAUSE!

Share this