well lolhazleft, i would defend that by saying that it protects the congregation. Why they shouldnt be talked with, well i think its obvious i dont listen to that... But doesnt the bible say you shouldnt even eat with that person anymore?
Does it really say that? The scripture you are referring to is in 1 Cor 5:11. " quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. "
This scripture does not say to totally shun the wrongdoer. Rather it says "quit mixing in company". This, at least to me, plainly appears to be in reference to socializing. Perhaps you wouldn't join him for a picnic, a movie or a cup of coffee..but nowhere does it say to completely shun the person. There is a big difference between mixing in company with and being polite and cordial. I can recognize you as a human being and be friendly to you without mixing in company with you. As Paul mentioned at 2 Thessalonians, wouldn't it be spiritually encouraging to admonish such a person..to acknowledge that they exist? Given your comments above....it appears as though you agree. So the question is......why do JWs completely SHUN DFd people when the bible does not tell them to do so?
The scripture at 1st Corinthians is also specific about whom to apply the words to. It says "anyone called a bother" who "is" a wrongdoer. Nowhere does it say to continue such treatment once the person is no longer recognized as a Jehovah's Witness. Nor does it say to shun a person who has stopped in their course of wrongdoing. Paul's words applied, not to persons claiming to be Christians who have at some time been guilty of an act of immorality, greed or drunkenness…….but to persons claiming to be Christians who ARE immoral…….who ARE drunkards……. or who ARE greedy. A person's getting drunk once does not make him a drunkard any more than a person's isolated act of immorality makes him a "fornicator". Paul's words clearly refer to a continuing course of life……….a distinguishing factor in who this person is/what they represent.
Granted, common sense would tell you that if a person is removed as a brother for a particular unrepentant sin and he continues in his way, perhaps you should not regularly associate with or mix in company with such a person, as he has plainly demonstrated that he is bad association. But what about a person that is disfellowshipped for fornication when they are 18 years old? 12 years later, this person is no longer practicing this sin but rather is married with children. He is well respected in his community, is a loving and moral person and leads a very good life. Unless he goes through the formality of reinstatement, he must be forever shunned by every Jehovah's Witness, including his own family, even though, according to scripture, he is no longer considered a brother and he is no longer practicing the sin. The reality of the situation is that this man is viewed to be in a perpetually disfellowshipped STATE OF BEING. It is no longer a question of what he IS doing or the wretched life he IS living…….rather it is a matter of what his category or status is. Yet this man's brother, who never got baptized, decides to slowly fade away from the congregation and live a quiet life of debauchery. While those in the congregation may or may not socialize with him regularly, they certainly talk to him when they see him and might even have a cup of coffee with him if they happened to be at the same restaurant. And why? Because he was never formally disfellowshipped. Somehow that technicality makes it ok to speak with him but not ok to speak with his brother who is a morally sound person that is living a good life.
Again.....the bible does not command witnesses to completely shun......yet that is what they do. Why? Where is the scriptural basis for it?
