EdenOne

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 2,912 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by EdenOne

• 
  75

  Australian Royal Commission Findings released

  by Mephis in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  will just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.

  in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.

  available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Pretty damning ... It's looking grimm for the WTS in Australia ...

  Eden
• 
  55

  SHUNNING - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some time ago, i wrote an extensive article on shunning and published it on my website.

  since that website had views on doctrinal matters that no longer reflect my current stand, i took the website down.

  however, my views on this matter are still current, and for the benefit of everyone here, i'm going to post the article here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Ok, I've done the final tweaks to improve readability. You can now convert it to pdf and the formatting will be correct on different browsers - I hope ;) Many thanks to Oubliette for the great coaching!

  I've also added some more content and reworked some of the phrasing to improve clarity.

  There comes a time where one has to say it's finished.

  Shunning - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  It's now completed and available freely through Google Docs. I wish I could have added a couple of real life stories. Maybe next time. I hope you find it useful. As usual, it's up for debate if you will.

  Eden
• 
  55

  SHUNNING - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some time ago, i wrote an extensive article on shunning and published it on my website.

  since that website had views on doctrinal matters that no longer reflect my current stand, i took the website down.

  however, my views on this matter are still current, and for the benefit of everyone here, i'm going to post the article here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Some changes made to the Google Docs file (Thanks for the coaching, Oub!)

  Front page and table of contents page added, plus some other minor content items.

  Eden
• 
  55

  SHUNNING - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some time ago, i wrote an extensive article on shunning and published it on my website.

  since that website had views on doctrinal matters that no longer reflect my current stand, i took the website down.

  however, my views on this matter are still current, and for the benefit of everyone here, i'm going to post the article here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Oub, I followed your advice.

  Here's my contribution. Anyone can now access it on Google Docs, using this link:

  SHUNNING - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  
  

  Feel free to use the essay as you please, just respect its integrity and credit the author if you publish or print it.

  
  

  
  

  Eden

  
  
• 
  10

  First ever Anti-Jihadist Arch in Spain

  by oppostate in

  1. social
  2. humour

  .

  carrefour inaugurates the first anti-jihadist arch in spain.

  carrefour inaugura el primer arco antiyihadistas de espana .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Wait until it starts dripping down liquid fat ...

  Eden
• 
  51

  I have been informed that if u are df and you appeal the decision and you loose appeal

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the elders will keep you out longer as payback for you appealing their decision how dare you peon appeal the secret weapons design you stupid publisher.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  You have seven days to appeal after the date of your DF. Be very clear in your reasons to appeal. Make sure you send a copy of the letter of appeal to the CO and your local Bethel branch too.

  Eden
• 
  23

  "Don't think too much...."

  by Tornintwo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a couple of middle aged jw sisters dropped round unannounced the other day, they were only being kind i suppose, after some awkward silences i voiced a couple of my issues with the religion, (the safe ones), sort of an explanation as to why i'm no longer attending, namely: everyone else will die, lack of support for young ones, mistreatment/judgementalism by prominent ones who get away with it because 'they're imperfect and we have to wait on jehovah' etc.

  well, after sympathizing and telling me horror stories about awful elders and their own kids' issues in the past (how some left the truth, had bitter divorces from fellow witnesses etc) they then begged me to 'come back to jehovah', 'he misses me' apparently.

  finally, the more pushy one summed it up with 'you're thinking too much, it's not good for you', 'some issues you just have to put in a drawer and forget about....'.. hmm nice reasoning sisters, theocratic school training at its finest!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Yes, I was told the same thing by an elder ... "Brother Eden, you're very intelligent, but that intelligence isn't doing you any good, you should back away from researching certain things. The 'slave' has done all the research and thinking for us already, so that we don't have to do it."

  Typical.

  Eden
• 
  55

  SHUNNING - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some time ago, i wrote an extensive article on shunning and published it on my website.

  since that website had views on doctrinal matters that no longer reflect my current stand, i took the website down.

  however, my views on this matter are still current, and for the benefit of everyone here, i'm going to post the article here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Oub, I would gladly do it if I knew how.

  Eden
• 
  55

  SHUNNING - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some time ago, i wrote an extensive article on shunning and published it on my website.

  since that website had views on doctrinal matters that no longer reflect my current stand, i took the website down.

  however, my views on this matter are still current, and for the benefit of everyone here, i'm going to post the article here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  ===================

  Part 9 - Conclusion

  ===================

  Although any Christian church has the right to terminate fellowship with an unrepentant member, and therefore, disfellowship a member as a disciplinary act, such is an extreme measure that should be used sparingly. Certainly, no man has enough authority nowadays to make additions to the Bible as to what sins are subject to disfelowshipping action. For example, although smoking is a filthy habit that deserves rebuke, there aren’t enough bible grounds to disfellowship someone for smoking. The Bible teaches us:

  “Every word of God proves true. He is a shield to all who come to him for protection. Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you and expose you as a liar.” – Proverbs 30:6 NLT

  When someone, under whatever pretext, even the claim of divine [theocratic] authority, goes ‘beyond what is written’, he is attempting to do the unthinkable: He’s trying to instruct the Lord. But, as Paul asked, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” (1 Corinthians 2:16) Those who have the audacity to ‘instruct the Lord’ in reality are ‘running ahead of the teaching of Christ’, and risk becoming antichrist themselves in doing so. (2 John 1:9) Therefore, any Christian church, and in this particular, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, would do well to not go beyond what is written to require what God has not required or to prohibit what God has not prohibited.

  When Paul and John wrote their admonishments to their Christian brethren, they were giving their opinion and instructing their methods as experienced ministers in the discharge of their offices as apostles. They were thoroughly convinced that their wisdom could be trusted, and they had God’s spirit. (1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:12, 25, 40; 2 Peter 3:15) No one nowadays can make a verifiable claim to possess equal authority as that of the apostles who interacted directly with Jesus Christ. Therefore, no one has the authority to modify or reverse what was written by the apostles or taught by Jesus, unless Jesus himself would unequivocally change his teachings.

  Therefore, when we are faced with demands that go against the teachings of Christ and the practice of the apostles, our Christian conscience should heed to the words of Peter and John:

  “We must obey God rather than men” – Acts 5:29

  Shunning – avoiding any contact, ignoring, treating with silence, regarding as ‘dead’ those who have been disfellowshipped from the congregation – is a practice unbecoming of a Christian. It causes intense psychological pain to those who are shunned, but also causes unfair and unnecessary psychological pain to those who are compelled to shun them, causing the perpetrators to become victims as well. Shunning breaks family apart, separate children from their parents, socially isolate individuals from their loved ones, and causes severe depression. Generalized shunning of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses is morally and biblically wrong. It’s in contradiction with Christian love, and is nothing more than a thought-control totalitarian tactic that’s a typical feature of a cult.

  The threat of disfellowshipping and consequent shunning impending over those who disregard the commandment to shun disfellowshiped ones isn’t compatible with the Christian freedom that we advocate. If the “truth shall set you free”, then this unloving practice that castrates the freedom of those inside the congregation cannot be part of the Christian truth, for no one is truly free with a gun pointed at his head. (John 8:32) In most severe cases, it has known to be a decisive factor in some cases of suicide among ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses, transforming its instigators and perpetrators as sharers in a social murder that reaped the life of a fellow human being. No individual Christian should wish to carry such guilt in its conscience; likewise no Christian organization should be guilty before God of promoting unchristian practices. – Hebrews 13:18

  Eden

  
  

  ==================================

  This concludes my article. It's actually 9 chapters (on the website there used to be a brief introduction that would be irrelevant here, and I mistakenly counted it as a chapter). I hope this might be useful if you're doing some reading and research on the topic of shunning.

  
  

  Eden
• 
  55

  SHUNNING - Unchristian Psychological Torture

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some time ago, i wrote an extensive article on shunning and published it on my website.

  since that website had views on doctrinal matters that no longer reflect my current stand, i took the website down.

  however, my views on this matter are still current, and for the benefit of everyone here, i'm going to post the article here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  ========================================================

  Part 8 - What about Bible passages that apparently support shunning?

  ========================================================

  
  

  There are only two Bible passages that are usually mentioned to support the practice of shunning among the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 2 John 1:10, 11.

  However, before we examine these passages, it’s important to put them into context. The early Christian congregation functioned as a voluntary religious association; this Christian fellowship had its major expressions in the form of communal gatherings. These events, originally held once a week, borrowed from existing Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions and practices in social and religious gatherings and adapted them to the Christian theme and developed a few new features as well. As a rule, whenever early Christians met as a community, the central event was the sharing of a meal, typically a supper, or Deipnon, later known as the Eucharistia. Along with it, another component was the Symposium, variably comprised of prayers, thanksgivings and blessings, preaching, reading of scriptures and authoritative writings, singing, prophesying and healings; naturally, convivial exchange between the members of the community took place throughout the entire function. In the early days of the Christian congregation, there weren’t dedicated meeting places – the congregations gathered in private homes of brethren who generously allowed the use of their household for this Christian feature. – 1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:23; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2

  Researcher Valery A. Alikin, in his excellent study The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering – Origin, Development and Contento f the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries (2009) wrote: “The food and drink consumed at Christian suppers, for example, were often said to represent Christ, whereas taking the meal was sometimes regarded as a rite accomplished in remembrance of Jesus. The Christian character of the meal also led to its being designated by typically Christian appellations, such as “the Lord’s Supper. (...) The participants experienced the meal as a gathering of the new family of the children of God. In their view, it expressed their community and unity “in Christ.” Looked at sociologically, it helped to mark the boundaries between them as Christians and the outside world”.

  The early Christians understood the Lord’s Supper as the expression of the congregation’s community with Christ . (1 Corinthians 10:16) Sunday, the first day of the week, was the day of choice for the Christian meetings to take place, usually in the evenings. (1 Corinthians 16:2) Thus, Sunday received a special Christian name because of the communal gatherings that were held on that day. They designation of the Sunday as the “Lord’s day”, or kuriakh. It appears that the early Christians of Jewish origin preserved the Sabbath evening as the family gathering for a meal, but instituted the Sunday – the first possible evening after the Sabbath – as the evening for the Christian meal, considered now as of greater value, to the point of outshining and eventually replacing the Sabbath altogether.

  The ordinary pattern of the two-fold communal meal of the early Christian congregations until the third century usually began with the participants reclining or sit down by the table; the host would say grace over the food and the drink. The bread was broken and the participants proceeded to eat. Bread and wine featured as the main elements of most evening meals consumed by ordinary people in antiquity, and they constituted the central components of the Christian group supper. It isn’t clear if other kinds of food and drink were used during the Eucharistia, but early Christian writers hint that water, olive oil, salt and herbs, as well as other food items, such as fish or cheese, might have been used, especially if the occasion was deemed special. In any case, the Christian supper wouldn’t be considered an appealing ‘banquet’, except perhaps by the poorest among the community.

  The second part of the Christian meeting was the Symposium. In 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14, the apostle Paul discusses what takes place during the Symposium. Debates could take place with unbelievers who accidentally entered into the gathering of the Christian community. These gatherings were usually full of activities and were joyful ocasions for those who participated in the fellowship. (1 Thessalonians 1:11-25) Usually, the meeting would involve a ritual form of introductury and/or fairwell greeting, the “holy kiss”. Paul mentions this in 1 Thessalonians 1:26 and Romans 16:16 and 1 Corinthians 16:20 and 2 Corinthians 13:12. The apostle Peter also mentions this Christian greeting in the form of a kiss. – 1 Peter 5:14

  In the second century, the order of the meetings changed, mostly for practical reasons: Whereas in the early days the Lord’s supper took place first, and then the Symposium, later the non-baptized were not allowed to take part in the Lord’s supper. Therefore, the Symposium would take place first, and it was opened to everyone, allowing the non-members to leave when it was over. Only then the faithful baptized members of the congregation would stay for the celebration of the communal meal.

  Early Christian writings, such as the Apostolic Traditions, allow us to conclude that the non-baptized were not allowed to partake in the “holy kiss” nor in the Eucharistia. The “holy kiss”, originally an expression of Christian love and fellowship, later became a liturgical act in the gatherings of the early Christian communities. Again, A. Alikin notes that the context in which Paul spoke about the “holy kiss” indicates that it was “connected with the exhortation to greet all members of the community or with the conveyance of greetings from the community from which Paul is writing. The exchange of the kiss seems to have been conceived, therefore, as part of the exchange of greetings between Christians in general: greetings were exchanged between Christians who were geographically separated; kisses were between Christians gathered at one place. (...) The phrase “kiss of love” (1 Peter 5:14) clearly indicates the meaning of the rite: it is an expression of mutual love among Christians. Just like Paul, the author of 1 Peter gives no explanation of the recommendation to kiss each other; he clearly supposes his audience knows this ritual act as well as its meaning. In the Christian communities where the holy kiss was practised, it was regarded as a manifestation of deep sympathy and a rite of inclusion.” (The bold is mine)

  I would like to underline these two important points: “Sharing a meal” and “greeting with a holy kiss” were reserved only for the faithful baptized members of the congregation. Unbelievers and non-iniciated should not be allowed to partake in these features of the Christian gatherings, for they weren’t in union with Christ. They weren’t members of the Christian fellowship. Also, to “receive someone in the household” isn’t a reference to a mere social interaction – it is a reference to the weekly Christian gatherings where the Lord’s supper was to be shared by the faithful members of the congregation.

  With the above in mind, let us now focus on examining the two problematic passages.

  Paul wrote to the brethren in Corinth:

  “When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don't even eat with such people. It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you." – 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NLT

  The context shows that Paul was dealing with a known case of scandalous fornication that was being tolerated in the congregation. Paul ordered that “you are not to associate with …” such person. The Greek word used here for ‘associate with’ is synanamignumi [Strong’s 4874], which means literally “to mix up together” or “to keep company with”. It has the added meaning of “to mix together to influence” or “to associate intimately with”. Nothing in this expression suggests that this person should never be spoken to. Rather, the idea is that such person should not be regarded as a close friend, someone a Christian would socialize with to the point of such association became an undesirable influence upon the faithful Christian.

  The call to ‘remove the evil person from among you’ might suggest that such unrepentant wrongdoers should be avoided once they have been ‘removed’, or disfellowshipped, excommunicated and banned from the congregation. However, a closer look reveals when such restriction in fellowship should take place: “you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don't even eat with such people”… Paul already said that it wasn’t possible to avoid association with unbelievers who indulged in wrongful conduct. This advice is specifically aimed at those who claim to be believers, brothers and sisters in the congregation, who indulge in wrongful conduct in the same way that unbelievers do. They are the ones whose close association with should be avoided. These needed be “removed” – either by being denied the full benefits of close fellowship within the realm of congregation’s worship and social activities of the brethren, or, perhaps ultimately banned from association with the congregation.

  The reference to ”don’t even eat with these people” brings us to mind the Christian sharing in the Eucharistia, the Lord’s supper. These unrepentant Christians had to be “removed” from the Eucharistia, as they weren’t any longer deemed worthy of being in unity with the Lord. They were excluded from the congregational fellowship, and, as per Jesus’ own instructions: “let him be like an unbeliever” (Matthew 18:17). Even unbelievers were allowed to attend Christian meetings (1 Corinthians 14:24), although they were only allowed to take part in the Symposium part of the gathering. Apparently, Paul was advocating that unrepentant sinners should be barred from any participation in the Christian gatherings, be it the Lord’s Supper or the Symposium. Their very presence wasn’t acceptable, unlike the presence of unbelievers. Therefore, the exhortation to stop “associating with” unrepentant sinners who called themselves brothers meant to stop considering them as brethren in Christ, and exclude them from Christian fellowship in the context of the gatherings. There is no indication whatsoever that such restriction would apply to other social interactions outside the congregation affairs.

  This agrees with the advice given by Paul in another letter to a different congregation:

  “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us… Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, [Greek: sunanamignumi] in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer. “ - 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15.

  The wrongdoer Christian would still be spoken to and greeted and reasonable encouragement could be given to him, but only outside the Christian meetings, since the faithful ones should not associate with them. It would be a contradiction to command the brethren to “not associate” with a sinner, and within the same sentence exhorting to them to “warn them [the sinners] as you would a fellow believer”. The only plausible way to do this would be to bar association with those in the Christian gatherings, while at the same time, social interaction – albeit perhaps limited – would be entirely possible outside the congregational context, and even spiritual matters could, and should, be considered with those who were driven out of the congregation for disciplinary reasons.

  The unrepentant sinner would not be regarded anymore as a “fellow believer”, but he would still be communicating with his former brethren, and would still be counted as a potential “lost sheep” who could be recovered to the fellowship. He would be made feel “ashamed” for being left aside, or denied fellowship in the congregational worship and social activities. And nothing is said about denying full fellowship once the wrongdoing is abandoned, which suggests that such disciplinary action would end once the wrongdoer repented and readjusted his conduct. Paul concluded that these are “methods which I as Christ's minister and apostle follow in the discharge of my office”…”I think I am giving you counsel from God's Spirit when I say this”.– 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:40.

  Therefore, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 doesn’t describe a generalized shunning practice; it simply describes how an unrepentant sinner should be “removed” from all congregational activity, namely, the communal Christian gatherings.

  What about 2 John 1:10, 11 ?

  “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.” – 2 John 1:10, 11 – NIV

  The context (verse 1:7) shows that John was talking about the antichrists. Who are they? They are “deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh … Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

  Contrary to popular superstitions, the “antichrist” isn’t Satan, not a demon, nor a specific individual. Any person who teaches that Jesus Christ wasn’t the Son of God coming in the flesh is an antichrist, that is, someone who opposes Christ. These can be:

  · People who teach that Jesus Christ is but a fictional character.

  · People who teach that the historical Jesus Christ was just a wise man, but not the very Son of God.

  · People who pretend to be Jesus Christ.

  · People who pretend to replace Jesus Christ.

  · People who attempt to fight against the teachings of Christ.

  · People who teach that the Son of God never really existed as a material man, but was a spirit in the material world, and his sufferings and death were just a theatrical play, as Christ only appeared to have been killed. In the first century, this was an associated with the Gnostics, especially those who embraced the heretical doctrines of docetism. It was probably with these in mind that John wrote about the “antichrists”.

  The problem with the docetic [from a root meaning “illusionism”] doctrine that denied Jesus Christ’s humanity was that it rendered the resurrection of Jesus Christ unnecessary and unreal, a fake. Since the resurrection of Christ was key to the entire doctrinal building of Christianity, to deny the resurrection of Christ was to deny the entire Christianity. The writings of Paul and John often address this doctrinal issue, which seems to indicate that it was spreading among the congregations. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-14; 2 Timothy 2:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14; 1 John 4:1-3; 5:5, 10

  Verse 11 reads in Greek: “ho legõn gar autõ chairain koinõnei tois ergois autou tois ponerois”, which literally means: “the [one] telling indeed to him to rejoice partakes in the works of him evil”. The crux in here is the meaning ascribed to chairain [Strong’s 5463]. The possible meanings are: farewell! be glad! God speed! Rejoice! hail! Incidentally, there is another term used in the NT for greetings and salutations in the Greek language: aspasmos [Strong’s 783 – see 1 Corinthians 16:21]; but undoubtly chairain was the most usual form of greeting. The Holman Bible Diccionary notes: “Paul transformed the customary greeting charein into an opportunity for sharing the faith, substituting “grace [charis] to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. Therefore, the greeting customarily exchanged between Christians was a form of blessing, an expression of shared faith. It was more than a customary polite greeting.

  With the above in mind, it’s easier to understand what the apostle John meant by “anyone who welcomes [or: greets] them shares in their wicked work”. The point was that, as Christians, they could not be uttering a greeting of blessing and shared faith with an antichrist, for that would be a form of sanction towards its teachings. It would be like saying: “God bless your anti-christian teachings”. Now, if a Christian would as much as greet an antichrist in such manner, he would be expressing fellowship towards that person, wishing him success in his false ministry, rejoicing with him in the propagation of a false gospel. This would equal ‘partaking on his wicked work’.

  The antichrist promoters of docetism would parasitically preach and teach their own version of Christianity within the congregations that gathered in the homes of other Christians. Their ministry was extremely subversive to the orthodox, apostolic teaching about the Christ. Therefore, it was necessary to give strong advice to the brethren against welcoming such teachers at the congregational gatherings, or give any sanction – albeit tacit – to their teachings. They were not to be “greeted” also in the sense that they should not receive the ritual “holy kiss” of Christian fellowship because they were actually denying Christ. This would disqualify them to be considered “Christians”, therefore, they should not be greeted and welcomed as if they were in communion with the Christian congregation.

  Therefore, when John wrote “do not take them into your house or welcome them”, he meant to say “do not socialize or in any other way sanction these men when they approach you with the intent of teaching you false doctrine during your meetings”. The words of John do not warrant shunning people, rather, shunning false teachings, by not allowing them any opportunity to expound their false teachings, thus tacitly sanctioning their ministry. Naturally, in order to reduce their influence, this would require that the level of socializing even outside the congregation should be reduced, as Christian fellowship would be suspended, but it wasn’t required to treat these people as if they were “good as dead”. That would be unchristian, for even John wrote that “since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11) True, those who become antichrists are rejecting their sonship towards God, and by extension, they do not consider themselves brothers and sisters anymore with their former Christian fellows who acknowledge their sonship towards God. But that doesn’t authorize a Christian to hate them as people, to wish their doom, only reject what their ideas stand for, knowing where they originate from.

  John’s admonishing strictly applies to “antichrists”, which attempt to deliberately indoctrinate a Christian in their anti-Christian doctrines. Consequently, this does not apply to those who are under reproach from the congregation, or have been disfellowshipped for sins such as immoral conduct, et al. or have decided to leave the congregation because they’ve lost their faith or disagree with the leadership or decide to embrace a different Christian church. Strictly speaking, John’s instructions only apply when someone from within the congregation (or a former Christian) attempts to approach a Christian to teach him anti-Christian doctrine. Any such attempts during a Christian gathering should be entirely shunned; it was therefore mandatory to withdraw Christian fellowship with such individual and bar such person from attending these gatherings. Outside the congregation, however, this would be a matter of personal decision. Each one should carefully weight the pros and cons of keeping close friendship or socializing with such person in order to avert spiritual danger. Yet, this evaluation wouldn’t prevent a polite greeting, or religiously neutral conversation strictly about other matters of daily life, attempting to recover that person to the Christian faith, or even assisting such person when in need, in the spirit of Christian mercy. “Mercy triumphs over judgment”, James wrote. – James 2:13

  
  

  Eden