the jerusalem bible is quite forceful, 'you must drive this evildoer from among you.' the revised standard version, 'drive out the wicked person from among you.' the new international version, 'expel the wicked man from your number.' all these suggest a concerted action, not simply a personal decision.
thedog1
JoinedPosts by thedog1
-
34
thedog1 said "I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement"
by KateWild inthedog1 said.............. hi sam.
i just listened to your jc hearing for re-instatement.
without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes.
-
-
-
34
thedog1 said "I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement"
by KateWild inthedog1 said.............. hi sam.
i just listened to your jc hearing for re-instatement.
without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes.
-
-
thedog1
I suppose this depends on whether you acknowledge the right of a body of elders to guide and direct matters in a cong.
-
34
thedog1 said "I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement"
by KateWild inthedog1 said.............. hi sam.
i just listened to your jc hearing for re-instatement.
without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes.
-
-
thedog1
Well if we are to accept that Paul was inspired when the wrote these words,
(1 Corinthians 5:9-13) 9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”
then we would have to act in accord with this. This seems to me to be a direction from Paul rather than simply a suggestion. How should we apply this today? There needs to be some benchmark for behaviour in the congregation, and after careful consideration and scriptural reflection, the body of elders would be in a position to make a call on this. Otherwise, this could descend into individual preference, which could be coloured by family or other issues, rather than basing it on scripture.
-
34
thedog1 said "I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement"
by KateWild inthedog1 said.............. hi sam.
i just listened to your jc hearing for re-instatement.
without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes.
-
-
thedog1
hi Stealth, in the part of the world I live in this is not really a major issue. So I cannot comment on what you seem to be experiencing in your area. I do know that of course addiction in all its forms is very destructive. I have personally been involved with individuals who have suffered from addictions, and I know how tough it is to break free. I have tried in whatever way I can to help them individually and with scriptural principles, but I know many people also need the help of gov agencies and experts in these areas. Elders in the congs are not qualified to deal with many of these things but can offer spiritual comfort along with the help people can get from others.
-
34
thedog1 said "I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement"
by KateWild inthedog1 said.............. hi sam.
i just listened to your jc hearing for re-instatement.
without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes.
-
-
thedog1
Sam, I sense that even though you are saying that you are free of the org, that you still have an emotional attachment to your life as a Witness. Not just that, but that you are honestly heartbroken at what you see as the corruption of something you must have really believed in if you served as a pioneer.
Do you really believe that the congregation is unclean? I see so much honesty and hard work and Christian good works done here in our congregation for those both inside and outside the cong. We had one situation recently where a sister lost her balance and went to a governmental organisation and accused the bros of not helping her with a very difficult physical disability she copes with (motor neurone). In fact, the local bros had done amazing, self sacrificing things for her, and even her own non-believing relatives contradicted her and acknowledged the local bros had done over and above anything that might have been expected. I can only say that Christianity in its basic form is alive and well in our local cong. It is a shame that you have not experienced the same thing. My own grouse is with the org and the doctrinal issues with the generation teaching and so forth but your issues seem to be more on a personal experience level.
-
34
thedog1 said "I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement"
by KateWild inthedog1 said.............. hi sam.
i just listened to your jc hearing for re-instatement.
without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes.
-
-
thedog1
sorry, should read, "I am not pontificating here'
-
34
thedog1 said "I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement"
by KateWild inthedog1 said.............. hi sam.
i just listened to your jc hearing for re-instatement.
without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes.
-
-
thedog1
Hi Sam, didn't get a chance until now to respond to your last post. I have to say that I really did honestly find it hard to respond without having all the facts. You say that if someone wants the facts that they can get them. My training as an elder, and I use this phrase deliberately, is that when a situation arises in a congregation which MIGHT warrant judicial action, that the body of elders, as you might know if you have the 'elders book', assign two elders to investigate. If they find evidence that might require a judicial committee to be formed, they meet with the other elders and review what has been discovered to see if there is truly enough evidence to form a judicial committee. I don't know, (how could I?) what happened in your situation, but I can say that in each case where I was involved in a judicial committee or in considering whether a committee should be formed, that we carefully considered the evidence and then reflected on the scriptual principles which govern whether any action should be taken to not only help the person who is in the middle of the situation, but the congregation as well. In that way, we were not just shooting from the hip, but trying to do what was needed in the particular situation.
You say that if anyone wants the facts that they can get them. But who will they get them from? If they get them from the bro or sis who is in the frame in front of the JC then there MAY be a bias there on the part of the 'accused.' Somebody who is outside the situation cannot of necessity get the inside story. Why not? For what I consider to be a very good reason. I have sat on quite a few committees on very delicate matters. When these things first came to light the body of elders consider the bare bones of the situation, and, as already mentioned, decide on whether a committee needs to be formed. From that point on, only the judicial committee hears all the gory details. This is so that only those who need to know are in a position to hear what is alleged to have happened. Imagine the accused goes before the committee and is repentant and remains in the congregation. How much easier it is to recover spiritually if only the bare minimum of people know what actually happens. The same thing applies even if somebody is unrepentant and is disfellowshipped. If they want to return then they can be confident that their story is not common knowledge. In saying this I do not condone gossip or people talking about things that they shouldn't. THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Probably does, sometimes, but this is the problem of those who actually do this, their own imperfection, and should not be laid at the door of the congregation. I really sound like an apologist here, right? But even though I know major mistakes have been made in judicial committees (I mentioned in another post that a close relative by marriage was DF'd ten years ago, completely unjustly, and belateldly reinstated and told he should never have been DF'd, but that is a whole other story), but it seems to me that there is not a workable alternative to this.
I have already mentioned to you my reservations about the way your committee treated you. You say that they hate you. Only you can know if that is true or not. They certainly did not handle the situation very well. You, and problemaddict say that these are man made rules that are not contained in scripture. But when somebody contravenes scriptural principles, what is supposed to happen? I used to be in the Catholic church where they paid lip service to Bible principles but never followed through. So you could live exactly how you wanted to all your life and then have a deathbed conversion and everything was hunky dory. While not condoning glib and insensitive handling of people's problems, I can see why a code of discipline and punishment, for want of using a better word, is necessary to keep the congregation clean. Paul did say that the congregation should 'remove the wicked man from among yourselves,' so there is scriptural precedent for judicial action. Please do not take from this that I relish this idea. I do not. But it seems that there have to be checks and balances, otherwise, we might as well be like everybody else and not worry too much about the level of moral standards in the cong. I am pontificating here, not holier than thou, otherwise I would not be posting here. I have my own doubts about many things in the org, but I am teasing out for myself what it all means.
As to whether HS was involved in your JC, sorry but I have no idea. Their lack of concern about DV is very problematic. Quite a few years ago I was on a committee where a bro I knew well in the cong was in front of a committee for DV. I thought about excusing myself from the committee as we had been quite close friends, but in the end I decided to go on the committee as I thought I had some insights into his character which might prove useful. Anyway, we had the committee, and one of the key points, and anyone who has been involved in a committee will know this, is whether the person is repentant, and has taken steps to prove this, as in, saying sorry to a wronged spouse in the case of DV and promising not to do it again. This individual had not done that, and obviously did not recognise at the time what true repentance was. So this person was DF by myself and the other members of the committee. He was re-instated later and continues now as a bro, and as far as I know (I have moved countries since), he is still in the cong, and the DV has not happened again.
You say in one of the posts related to your recording that you were DF'd for reviling. An unusual ground for this, not something I have come across before in my personal experience of DF. Again, not knowing the details makes it hard to comment on. Whether you would welcome my comments or not is another thing. Would like to say again, and also to problem addict, that anonymous accusations are worthless.
-
-
-
thedog1
Hi Sam
I just listened to your JC hearing for re-instatement. Without knowing the details of what happened it is difficult to make a comment on it but here goes. I get the impression that you were only disfellowshipped sometime over a year ago. That may not be the case but I think you mention sending letters to the elders over a period of a year or so, or that could mean that you waited for some time after being disfellowshipped and then started writing to the elders. What strikes me straight away is that both you and the bros you spoke to seem honest about looking for a solution. The bros seem to be doing their best within the limits of the guidelines they have been set. You mention quite a bit in your contibutions about scriptural examples of those who have been forgiven by Jehovah. It does seem that the prodigal son was forgiven straight away by his father on his return. The only proof he could furnish of his repentance was his desire to just be treated as a hired labourer and not as the favoured son again. Manasseh was a slightly different case as I think the scripture specifically says that he humbled himself before Jehovah and Jehovah accepted this. How he proved this we cannot be entirely sure. Of course, as Jehovah knows our hearts he can see if we are repentant or not. There is a good bit of discussion on your hearing about situations in your life, your son's life that those on the outside of this situation can only guess about. My heart goes out to you as it seems to be a very difficult situation. It seems to me that your husband has custody of your son? Forgive me if I got that wrong but that seems to be the case from what I heard. You also mention in the audio about domestic violence. The bros do not seem to directly address this. Also, it is more than a bit worrying to me that they do not in every case tell you who has been reporting certain matters to them. They say it does not matter but of course it does matter. It is a human and scriptural right for anybody to know who is accusing them of certain matters. They stated that some named individuals said that you stated certain things. You denied it. That is possibly something that can be proved at the mouth of two witnesses, or not. But the other things they mentioned as having heard from un-named individuals cannot be taken into account if they cannot furnish proof. I do not know all the ins and outs of your situation, and as you know from my posts, I have my own doubts. But I have not yet rejected 'the Truth.' Please let me know your thoughts on this.
-
-
-
thedog1
I listened to some of it but have yet to listen to it properly. Will listen to it in the next day or so. I am in the position of being on the other side of the table, if you know what I mean. I have been on quite a number of judicial committees over the years where we df'd people and in other cases did not, and in some cases re-instated people. So I will let you know my thoughts, if you are interested, on how your one went.
-
-
-
thedog1
I posted on another thread here that I am currently serving as an elder and taking the WT study in an English group in a foreign country. The local bros and sis are lovely people and truly loving. This shows the action of Christianity on an individual's heart, but unfortunately those higher up the chain are not similarly affected. Can I ask you Sam, why, as it appears from some of your posts, that you wanted to be re-instated? Don't reply if you don't want to. Just wondering if you did not really believe in it anymore, why you wanted to rejoin the cong. Or have I got it wrong?