Read this on another board!..No longer D.A or D.F. ?

by Golden Girl 30 Replies latest jw friends

  • willyloman
    willyloman

    Just to clarify some of the inaccuracies that have popped up here:

    1. The change is in the wording of the announcement (what you heard is true).

    2. Someone announced as "no longer one of JW's" will be treated as DF'd. This won't be announced but will be understood by all concerned (the new Org book makes that clear).

    3. There is not, nor has there ever been, any difference between DF and DA with respect to how the person is treated. Both are given the JW shunning treatment, with all the fixin's. The terms simply describe how the person arrived at their non-dub status.

    4. The new wording in the Org book may or may not be significant. They've changed this wording several times in the past, each time making it more and more vague and nondescriptive. The conventional wisdom among old-timers here is that this is brought about by the Legal Department at the WTS, in the hopes it will eliminate potential lawsuits; the rationale being that announcing someone is DF/DA has negative overtones and might be considered slanderous, while "no longer one of us" is more neutral. This, of course, is a perfect example of JW Double-Speak, because to dubs it all means the same thing.

  • ezekiel3
    ezekiel3

    OD Book Page 153-156



    IF THE DECISION IS TO DISFELLOWSHIP

    In some cases the wrongdoer may become hardened in his course of sinful conduct and thus fail to respond to efforts to help him. Fruitage, or works, befitting repentance may not be in evidence, nor may genuine repentance be apparent at the time of the judicial hearing. What then? In such cases, it is necessary to expel the unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, thus denying him fellowship with Jehovah's clean congregation. This is done to remove the bad influence of the wrongdoer from the congregation, thereby safeguarding the moral and spiritual cleanness of the congregation and protecting its good name. (Deut. 21:20, 21; 22:23, 24) When the apostle Paul became aware of the shameful conduct of a member of the congregation in Corinth, he admonished the elders to "hand such a man over to Satan ... in order that the spirit [of the congregation] may be saved." (1 Cor. 5:5, 11-13) Paul also reported the disfellowshipping of others who had rebelled against the truth in the first century.?1 Tim. 1:20.

    When a judicial committee concludes that an unrepentant wrongdoer should be disfellowshipped, it should let him know of the decision, clearly stating the Scriptural reason(s) for the disfellowshipping. When informing the wrongdoer of their decision, the judicial committee should tell him that if he believes that a serious error in judgment has been made and he wishes to appeal the decision, he may do so by writing a letter clearly stating the reasons for his appeal. He will be allowed seven days for this, from the time he was notified of the committee's decision. If such written appeal is received, the body of elders should contact the circuit overseer, who will designate elders to serve on an appeal committee to rehear the case. The elders selected to care for this weighty responsibility should be men who are experienced and qualified. Every effort should be made to conduct the appeal hearing within one week after the written appeal is received. If there is an appeal, announcement of the disfellowshipping will be held in abeyance. In the meantime, the accused person will be restricted from commenting and praying at meetings or from special privileges of service.

    An appeal is granted as a kindness to the accused and allows him a further hearing of his concerns. Thus, if he deliberately fails to appear at the appeal hearing, the disfellowshipping should be announced after reasonable efforts have been made to contact him.

    If the wrongdoer does not wish to appeal, the judicial committee should explain to him the need for repentance and what steps he can take toward being reinstated in due time. This would be both helpful and kind and should be done in the hope that he will change his ways and in time qualify to return to Jehovah's organization.?2 Cor. 2:6, 7.

    ANNOUNCEMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPING

    When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, simply stating: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." There is no need to elaborate. This will alert faithful members of the congregation to stop associating with that person. (1 Cor. 5:11) The presiding overseer should approve this announcement.


    DISASSOCIATION

    The term "disassociation" applies to the action taken by a person who, although a baptized member of the congregation, deliberately repudiates his Christian standing, rejecting the congregation by his actions or by stating that he no longer wants to be recognized as or known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because he is disassociated, his situation before Jehovah is far different from that of an inactive Christian, one who no longer shares in the field ministry. An inactive person may have failed to study God's Word regularly, or because of experiencing personal problems or persecution, he may have lost his zeal for serving Jehovah. The elders as well as other concerned members of the congregation will continue rendering appropriate spiritual assistance to an inactive brother. (Rom. 15:1; 1 Thess. 5:14; Heb. 12:12) However, the person who disassociates himself by repudiating the faith and deliberately abandoning Jehovah's worship is viewed in the same way as one who is disfellowshipped. A brief announcement is made to inform the congregation, stating: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses."

    Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us." (1 John 2:19) For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21) If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation, stating: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The presiding overseer should approve this announcement.
  • freedom96
    freedom96

    So, will the rank and file still say that someone is disfellowshipped?

    As we all know, a just ol' plain non witness is not to be shunned, where those who leave or are kicked out are. So there must be some way that they describe the difference.

  • HadEnuf
    HadEnuf

    Whatever it does...it will give the congregation a whole lot of opportunity to increase the amount of gossip/slander about the person "no longer viewed as a JW".

    cathy l.

  • Seeker4
    Seeker4

    ezekiel 3 and illwyloman both have it right.

    The only change is in the announcement. No long saying, "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming a Christian," or even "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped."

    DA or DFd it's the same thing: "So and so is no longer one of JWs." The end result - shunning - is exactly the same.

    Talesin - There was no technicality involved there. They did shun the DAd just like the DFd.

    Robdar - You will be shunned for that choice. Just don't play there game. Why would you want to acknowledge such a screwed up system of thinking by going along with it?

    Don't think anything has changed except for the WTS making sure it covers its ass from lawsuits.

    S4

  • Robdar
    Robdar
    Robdar - You will be shunned for that choice. Just don't play there game. Why would you want to acknowledge such a screwed up system of thinking by going along with it?

    Seeker4, my family is now completely out of the org and it no longer bothers me that I might be shunned. I care about my friends that I left behind and wish that I could escape without being shunned but I care more about finally being free. I want my name removed from that religion's member list. I've got to get my soul back from them.

  • Kenneson
    Kenneson

    Robdar,

    Amen. So be it.

  • doofdaddy
    doofdaddy

    I agree that it is for legal reasons but

    Wouldn't they still be open to slander if they continue the old practice of giving a "special needs" talk at the same time?

  • mad max
    mad max

    Well since I did not attend my commitee case on Sun 29th, after being 8 years out of the org, 2 phone calls later from elder to attend (that is how far their love goes) told him cannot serve their God who lies.

    I was wondering what would happen from then, now the elder, it looks like to me, is that he has to phone me again and tell me what decision they have come to.

    Then he will announce I am no longer a JW, as it has been said here that you can imagine what gossip is going to go around, everybody now would like to know what it was i did, unless they do give a talk.

    Prehaps I should be like Martin Luther and nail my thoughts to the kingdom hall door.

    Thanks for this "light", you see it does get brighter and brighter HERE on this site and we are feed at the right time.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    This new policy is certainly purely for legal reasons. I suspect it's a result of the Anderson lawsuit.

    The policy brings up some interesting questions, though. What's the difference between someone announced publicly as "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and someone who is by their general actions no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses? To an outsider the only difference is the public announcement. This means that, for someone to know if a person is DF'd or DA'd, the JW rumor mill has to be going full blast, and/or elders would have to make private announcements, i.e., not at the Kingdom Hall. Also, it raises the potential problem that individual JWs, especially elders, could decide that anyone who simply leaves is "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and must be formally shunned. All of this raises many potential legal problems. I think this new policy is going to bite the Society badly in the long run.

    AlanF

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit