When Did Df'ing Start in Modern Times?

Since Russell didn't tie the Corporation into nice neat religious package and didn't ward off all other religions as evil, when did the practice of disfellowshipping start?

When did they decided to formulate judicial committees and start reproving, marking and df'ing?

At the very least it began with Olin Moyle in 1943. 

 

But I believe it began with Maria Russell in 1900 if not before. Russell had Maria thrown off the editorship of the Watchtower, he put her in a home without servants, wrote letters to her friends and ordered maria shunned, and cut off her monetary support.  All in an effort to keep people from believing anything she had to say.

It didn't work then---and it won't work now.

 

If I remember correctly, the congregations were told of the new program of disfellowshipping in the very early 50s. This made it an official policy of the wbts but I think the shunning thing goes farther back than the 1950s. Then once it was instituted they added things to the list of offenses. The earliest addition I recall is the smoking issue being added to the original list. 

The following is from Expanded Biblical Comments, summarizing WTS policies from 1879-1916.

 

 

Matthew 18:17

If he shall neglect to hear -- But not sooner. F289; Q104:2 The advice

of these brethren should be followed by both. R5134:3; F289

If the injurious actions continue. R4985:2, 5134:3

In the event of the concurrence of the brethren that the wrong is being

done and of the refusal of the wrong-doer to desist. R5782:5

Even if the witnesses agree with us and the wrong-doer is not corrected,

we are still not at liberty to make mention of the case to others. R3030:3

Tell it -- The elders might constitute themselves into a Board or

Committee and get one of their number to look into the case and see if the

wrong could not be stopped or adjusted. Q479:4

Facts, evil deeds or evil doctrines, and not evil surmisings nor rumors,

are the basis of Scriptural disfellowship. R3035:5

Unto the church -- The consecrated. R2666:3

To patiently hear definite, positive charges of sufficient importance.

R4985:4

Not to be punished but, as a last resort, for reproof and correction.

R3744:6

In the presence of the accused. F415; R4985:4, 4281:5

If it is considered of sufficient importance as concerns himself, or the

Church, or the truth. F291, 292, 415 In the case that the matter had gone

beyond the individual, and had somehow involved the whole congregation.

Q479:4

There must be brought evidence to show that there is really a matter to

come before the Church, and that it is not merely a case of busybodying.

R4985:3

Up to this time, the case should not be discussed outside of these

witnesses. R5409:2

In proportion as they are saints they will desire to say no more to anyone

respecting the weaknesses or sins of anybody. F292

First certifying the facts to the elders. F289

The two witnesses should say to the elders of the Church that they have a

case to present for a hearing, but they should not make charges. R4985:2

The elders should call a special meeting to inform the Church of the case,

and the Church should decide when to call a meeting to consider it. R4985:2

For the one to state his trouble and the other to answer. R4985:4

At no stage of the proceedings should unkind words be permitted. R4985:4

It will be reasonable to expect that the voice of the Church in such a

matter will be supernaturally guided, that truth and righteousness may

triumph. R2666:4

The Church's decision of the question is to be final, binding upon both.

R5134:3, 4985:3

Neglect to hear the church -- By not repenting and reforming. F290

This is the highest tribunal. Brother should not go to law with brother in

the worldly courts, however much he may feel himself aggrieved. R2666:4

If either still have doubts as to the justice of the matter, he will

surely obtain a blessing by giving full and hearty consent to the Lord's

arrangements. R2666:4

The vote of the Church should be unanimous, if possible, ignoring all

partisanship. R4985:4

The administration of discipline is not the function of the elders only,

but of the entire Church. F289; Q479:3

Their advice must not carry with it any penalty whatever. R4985:4; F290

Let him be unto thee -- In carrying out the findings of the Church

court, the matter rests with each individual; each must discern the

justice of the decision for himself. F292

As an heathen -- In that we can no longer have Christian fellowship with

such. R1663:5*

We would treat a heathen with justice and kindness and the love of pity,

but not with the love of affection due to a brother in Christ. R1255:4

Outside of your religious and social company, but not outside of your

love, care and desire to help. (Rom. 12:19,20) R3801:3

Not forbid attendance at meetings. The most would be to withdraw

fellowship, refuse to visit their homes or to invite to our homes, and not

appoint to any office in the class. R5954:3

Lest our continued fellowshipping cause our influence to oppose the truth

and favor the error, and thus make us sharers in the evil being done.

R1255:1

His punishment is not the object, but to secure repentance and reform. F290

And a publican -- He is a brother still, but not in the best standing.

R4985:5

Deprived of any and all manifestations of brotherhood. F290

Not appointing him to any position or honor in the Church. R5782:5,

5134:3, 4985:5

Not to be asked to offer prayer. R4985:5

To be debarred from participation in the Lord's Supper. F474

Treated in the kindly, courteous way in which we would treat any publican

or Gentile, withholding the special rights, greetings or voting

opportunities that belong to the Church. R3745:4

Not to be harshly spoken of even after the separation, just as we are not

to berate or rail against heathen men and publicans. F290

In that we could no longer respect such as we would an honorable man of

the world. R1663:5*

But not injured or treated unkindly in any way. F303; R5134:3, 4985:5

Disfellowshipped until he recognizes his wrong and makes amends to the

extent of his ability. F293

Taking heed to "speak evil of no man." (Titus 3:2) F290

We are to distinguish between avoidance and appointment to honorable

positions in the Church and the still different matter of disfellowship

and cutting off from the body of Christ, the Church. R4318:4

A complete separation from the Church. Until he has made a complete reform he should be thoroughly disowned by the Church. R5275:1

Interesting to note that df'ing then was done by vote of the entire congregation.

 

onacruise, i just didn't get what you said.

I'm with outoftheorg on this. My recollection is that the modern DF procedures were introduced after WW2, in the early 1950s.

Ozzie

Edited by - ozziepost on 26 July 2002 2:40:32

Sally, I posted that info to show that df'ing was practiced virtually since the beginning of WTS. The two biggest differences were that 1) the decision to df was made by vote of the entire congregation, not by some selected committee of elders and 2) treatment of df'd ones was generally more moderate than modern policy (after all, Russell constantly referred to people of other religions as "brothers," a reflection of the more tolerant attitude of the Bible Students).

The modern procedure of a Judicial Committee was instituted in the early '50s, as Ozzie and outoftheorg point out.

Oz and outof are correct about the timing... the early 50s...but as practiced then and until the RayFranz/Dunlap/Sanchez witchunt of the early eighties, it was much less draconian than it is today.   It was regarded as an extreme ``last resort'' resolution and usually invoked only when the offender thumbed his/her nose at the committee/congeation/organization.

it was done as soon as it was figured out that it was the quickest way to discredit someone and win the argument.

I agree that DF'ing was much less common back in the 50's and 60's. Most offences brought about a probation, sometimes announced but usually secret. Having spent time on a secret probation (for loving my neighbour) I can tell you that this meant no public talks, no service meeting assignments although MS was OK, no praying at meetings, no ever being on my own with a sister.

All very esteem robbing of course.

Englishman.

Naturally, because it's not the Christian way.

Cheers, Ozzie