This question can best be answered by some old-timers that been around for many years. I was wondering what did JW's do to people that refused to give up wrong conduct before the 1952 disfellowshipping came into place? I know that in the 60's people were put on "probation" for wrongdoing but what about unrepentent sinners?
What did JW's do to wrongdoers before Disfellowshipping in 1952?
by booker-t 8 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Undecided
I was there, but I can't remember.
Ken P.
-
Frog
I remember when I was a kid there was the whole "bad association" label that was put on some poor unfortunate underdog that they couldn't pin anything serious on. What's the go with the latest news that they're dropping the whole "disfellowshipping" announcement thing, and turning it into "such and such is no longer a JW"...know anything more about that?! heard it on the grape vine.
frog
-
Oroborus21
Greetings!
The case of Olin Moyle illustrates that disfellowshipping was occurring, at least in practice, as early as the 1940s but really if you examine it the spirit of disfellowshipping goes back to Russell's days. During the many schisms and scandals that occurred at that time and during Rutherford's administration there were many persons, even whole congregations of Bible Students that were ostracized for opposing the President. This is especially true of Rutherford as Russell was significantly more tolerant of dissent. But even Russell and his associates practiced a form of disfellowshipping by refusing to have anything to do with certain ones that made their Sh-List.
As for something closer to what you are asking, I believe that persons who were considered to be "evil slaves" were generally scorned and shunned once the elders/servants identified them or the situation became generally known.
What was "new" was giving this practice an official label and creating a whole procedure of judicial committees, sending forms in to Bethel and recordkeeping, etc. Also developing over time was the specific disfellowshipping SIN-REASONS (besides supposedly being "unrepentant") from organ transplants/accepting blood (60s/70s) to smoking (early 80s) to apostasy (mid-80s) to military/job/neutrality infractions (late 80s), to gambling/general "worldliness" (90s) to failing to go officially report time in service (coming 2007) to using the Internet (coming 2010)...we didn't start the fire....
-Eduardo
-Eduardo
-
blondie
Before 1952, judicial hearings were held before the whole congregation of baptized JWs. They voted on whether a person was DF'd or not.
Starting in 1952 (1944), a committee of 3 servants (no overseers then) would hear the case privately and make a public announcement to the congregation, but not to vote on. Reinstatement was also decided on by 3 servants, not the congregation.
Before this, Matthew 18:15-17 was applied to these situations, and individual JWs would avoid individual JWs that had sinned against them, or so I understand.
*** w93 4/1 p. 22 Growing up with Jehovah?s organization in South Africa ***Back in 1947, my father made a big mistake. His store, located over 120 miles [200 km] from where he and Mother were living, became unprofitable because of dishonest management, so he moved back alone to manage it himself. Long periods of separation from Mother resulted in his falling into temptation. As a result, he was disfellowshipped.
*** w81 7/15 p. 28 A Prisoner?s Prayer Is Answered ***
In 1947, one of us heard someone else preaching about Jehovah. This time it was a Canadian missionary, Vic White, one of Jehovah?s Witnesses. He came to speak to our group and I was chosen to translate for him. We discovered that the individual who had been preaching in my compound was no longer one of Jehovah?s Witnesses, but had been disfellowshiped before the war. This information provoked a crisis in our little group.
*** yb79 p. 184 Leeward Islands ***
Dumas later wrote tracts justifying himself and mailed these to the brothers and the Society. In February 1948, Dumas was disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation.
*** yb79 p. 185 Leeward Islands ***
He even referred to himself as a "prophet." Roberts was disfellowshiped in 1948, but by Jehovah?s great mercy he was accepted back into fellowship with Jehovah?s people in January 1962.
*** w67 10/1 p. 596 Following Faithful Shepherds with Life in View ***
Even as early as 1904, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, in his book The New Creation, outlined a Scriptural procedure for dealing with violators, even to the point of withdrawing from them the congregation?s "fellowship and any and all signs or manifestations of brotherhood." But this extreme measure of excommunication or disfellowshiping was not widely practiced among the congregations and was not made a requirement on congregations until 1952. No longer could Christian conduct be viewed simply as a matter affecting only the individual or individuals involved.
Proclaimers book chap. 13 pp. 186-187 Recognized by Our Conduct ***
As early as 1904, in the book The New Creation, attention was given to the need to take appropriate action so as not to allow a demoralizing of the congregation. The understanding that the Bible Students then had of the procedure for dealing with wrongdoers as outlined at Matthew 18:15-17 was discussed. In harmony with this, there were, on rare occasions, ?church trials? in which the evidence of wrongdoing in serious cases was presented to the entire congregation. Years later, The Watchtower, in its issue of May 15, 1944, reviewed the matter in the light of the entire Bible and showed that such matters affecting the congregation should be handled by responsible brothers charged with congregation oversight. (1 Cor. 5:1-13; compare Deuteronomy 21:18-21.) This was followed, in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952, with articles that emphasized not only proper procedure but the need to take action to keep the organization clean.
*** w52 3/1 p. 139 Propriety of Disfellowshiping ***
The servants certainly should be mature brothers and be willing to take the full responsibility in making their decision. Then their decision is presented to the company. Not for the company to vote on. No, but the company servant, the assistant company servant and the Bible study servant have to take all the responsibility for the course of action that is to be taken.
If they are thoroughly convinced in their minds that that individual is wrong and should be put out of the company and the person has not made any steps toward repentance, then they tell the company, in the form of a resolution, of what they have done. They do not ask the company to vote on that resolution and say, "We approve your action." No, the servants in the company are charged with the responsibility of shepherding the flock and of keeping the congregation clean. So the servants tell the company what action has been taken and that the offensive individual is no longer a member of this congregation
The servants that disfellowshiped him must make the announcement to the congregation, saying that, since this one has repented and they are now thoroughly satisfied as to his reformed course of action, "we receive him back." Then the congregation should abide by the decision of the servants that are appointed in the company. Again the company does not vote on whether they will accept him back, because they have confidence in their servants that these have made the right investigation and the right decision.
w52 3/1 pp. 147-148 Sin Making Reinstatement Impossible ***
This scripture in Matthew 18:15-17 has often been used in connection with disfellowshiping or putting such persons out of the organization, but it has merely to do with
personal avoidance.
-
garybuss
I do think Paul Johnson and the four directors that Rutherford had the cops throw out of Bethel thought disfellowshipping started in 1917. I think it did. -
blondie
Gary, I think DFing has been around in some form or another at least since 1904, perhaps even before. Up until 1944 and especially, 1952, the procedure was done in front of the whole congregation which voted and made the decision, rather than the star chamber process now done in secret before 3 elders. I also get the idea that perhaps the shunning was done by the aggrieved towards the ones that had sinned against them.
The Bible Students still practice the previous procedure of holding the hearing before the whole congregation and the congregation votes and makes the decision to DF or not.
Blondie
-
outoftheorg
I recall a time in around the 1944 era in San Diego, where a man was condemned as an "EVIL SLAVE".
I believe this involved a difference in perception of some bible teachings and his name was announced and it was stated that "he is now an evil slave."
I don't think they were that obsessed with ones private life at that time.
I was only 9 yrs. at that time so I do not know what procedure they used.
Outoftheorg
-
garybuss
In 1952 there were only 427,000 members. Now they disfellowship over 60,000 per year.I think I may have figured out where the missing membership growth is going.