I'm hoping you all can help.

An active Jehovah's Witness joined us in chat tonight and was dismayed that this site slams Witnesses for trying to follow the Bible in matters such as disfellowshipping. This chatter feels that many people here complain about the Society's policies without offering evidence that the policies are without scriptural backing.

I must be at work very early Monday morning, so I could not stay in chat as long as I wished. I told the chatter I would start this thread so that s/he could gather information and opinions from several sources.

In chat I was trying to present a point that I remembered from In Search of Christian Freedom, about how disfellowshipping was meant to be a personal choice, not a decision forced on the congregation by a small committee. I did not have the material at hand and did not do a very good job of it.

I tried directing the chatter to web sites, but the chatter seemed uncomfortable with this and wanted scriptures and explanations directly without looking at website articles.

I will not be able to do more research or posting on this topic until late Monday evening. If you all can help out before then, I'm sure the chatter would very much appreciate it.

Ginny

I've been "out" too long to remember what scriptures they use to justify their actions. "Quit touching the unclean thing"? - could mean anything. Would the chatter be kind enough to refresh us on the scriptures the WTS uses to disfellowship. I also thought there was something about "Expell the wicked one from amongst yourselves". ????

I would like to point out that I am disfellowshipped and my circumstances were that my husband and I left the congregation quietly. We'd lost faith. After 2 yrs of not associating with the congregation we were approached and accused of apostasy. We were moral, upstanding young parents who no longer believed in any religion of any sort. How does this qualify us to be called "wicked"? (I ask you to employ commonsense when answering this!!)

I would also like to ask the chatter how it is that there is great inequality in practising disfellowshipping in the Organisation. In many congregations, people have been allowed to slip away from the congregation without being disfellowshipped. It's even spoken of in the WT magazine that people CAN leave quietly. Some appear to be disfellowshipped whilst others are left alone. What scripture is used to explain this?

I would also like to ask how any JW can claim at doors that they do not break up families? Disfellowhipping is now ramped in the Organisation causing family break ups in the thousands. Yet when I was a practising JW, we vehemently denied that we broke up families.

Marilyn

Re: Shunning is worse than the worst crime poss... Oct 26, 2001 10:13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a thread which I received from Englishman, who explains it exactly as it should be (from the Scriptures)......

One of the best sites about JW's and particularly DF'ing, (you might have to ignore the odd relgious plug)is at http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/friends.html
Here's how it explains the un-scripturalness of shunning:

"Actually fornication is reported among you, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, that a wife a certain man has of his father ... In my letter I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not meaning entirely with the fornicator's of this world or the greedy persons and extortion's or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. But now I an 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 reveler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Cor 5:1, 9-13)

In First Corinthians chapter 5 a man was having sexual relations with his fathers wife on a continual basis. It was not a one time event. This man was continually having sexual relations with his father's wife. For this he was to be removed from the congregation. Paul's counsel was for anyone called a brother who was continually practicing fornication, revelry, greediness, drunkenness and extortion was to be removed from the congregation, not even to eat a meal with them. This was not a person who did an occasional wrong and was willing to make corrections. This had absolutely nothing to do with a person who does not go along with all the teachings of a particular religious organization's policies and rulings. Nor does it have anything to do with persons being required to follow doctrinal and theological interpretations of scripture. It does include all those who go against the meaning of the Christ, by a continual practice of selfish and hurtful actions against their fellow man. Only a continual and thoughtless practice of hurtful and harmful acts towards others would merit such a removal. Misapplying this scripture, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Jehovah's Witnesses, use this scripture to excommunicate or disfellowship any member who disagrees and questions any of their doctrinal teachings and theological interpretations, this being a highly effective controlling tool in manipulating their followers.
---------------------------------------------------
Ginny, please ask why it is that someone who disassociates himself should be viewed the same as a disfellowshipped person.... is that biblical??? No!!!!! However, the Society deemed it necessary to equate disassociation with disfellowshippjng for the simple reason to keep the witnesses in line so they would not leave the organization en masse. I have said before that if the witnesses would have the option to choose to disassociate themselves and continue to be allowed to associate with witnesses, at least 50% of all witnesses would do so.... No scriptural basis - then the Borg will make their own rules - sound familiar? Yes indeed it does!!!

:*) Richie

Ginny,

Just to make a very small addition ( time compromised at present! ) to Richie's point regarding the man thought to be involved in an incestuous relationship probably with his step-mother and described in the scriptures noted above.

Paul’s 1st letter, suggesting that Christians might not seek fellowship with such a person was written in 55CE while he was in Ephesus.

Paul’s 2nd letter again written from Ephesus that same year and suggested that the man had ceased his incestuous relationship and Paul encouraged his friends to take him back in friendship lest he become overly saddened.

Given the traveling required to deliver these letters to the congregation in Cornith, and to receive news back, and given that they were both written the same year, we have to conclude that this situation must have been dealt with in a few short months, perhaps even weeks. This is the only practical case contained in scripture that seems to indicate a process being enacted to discipline adherents in the early church.

No restrictions, judicial committees, announcements, just a simple and rapid re-affirmation of Brotherhood once the immorality had ceased. The WTS has gone way beyond the bounds of scripture and actually developed a system that bears more resemblance to a political trial than a theological aid.

HS

Ginny wrote:
I remembered from In Search of Christian Freedom, about how
disfellowshipping was meant to be a personal choice, not a decision
forced on the congregation by a small committee. I did not have
the material at hand and did not do a very good job of it.

Ginny, I think the point you are referring to is on page 326 of Ray's book.

He talks about 2 Cor 2:6-8 where it says "rebuke given by the majority" of
the congregation was sufficient and that the man should now be forgiven
by them--"the majority."

"Majority" implying not all withdrew fellowship with the individual, but
that it was a voluntary congregational response on a personal level.

Check page 344:
Same Greek phrase is used at
2 Thess 3:14 "stop associating with" (jw's apply as marking only,
not total shunning)
and
1 Cor 5:11 - "quit mixing in company with" (jw's apply as total shunning)

Page 338 for some good comments on 2 John 9-11 about never
say a greeting.

What is at issue? The teaching of Jesus as the Christ, not the teachings
of a religion.

Page 340 and 341
Two different Greek words translated "greeting"
at 2 John 11 and 13

JW's say they have different meanings.

But Luke 1 :28, 29 uses both Greek words synonymously
indicating they had the same meaning.

"Greeting" is not talking about just saying "hello."
It is talking about showing acceptance or agreement.

I don't think jw's use Mt 18:15-19 for disfellowshipping offenses?
Isn't that for fraud/slander?

Hope this helps.
Am running out of time.
Quester

Hi Venice:

You said:

"Who's EXAMPLE should we follow JESUS or the Pharisees?"

Well, that's just one more proof that the WTBTS is a modern day Pharisee!!! So sad they don't see it!!!!

As has been pointed out, the above is the NWT rendering of Matthew 18:17. The above, however, is not the wording that ordinarily appears in Watchtower publications when Matthew 18:17 is referenced. Almost without exception, the verse is rendered,

"If he does not listen to them, speak to the [responsible ones in the] congregation. If he does not listen even to the [responsible ones in the] congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

Notice the subtle difference. This is another example of how the Watchtower subtly changes what the Bible says as it suits their theology and convenience. There is no scripture anywhere that authorizes secret, star-chamber type hearings with persons who have committed sins, for the purpose of determining whether they are repentant and should be allowed to remain in the congregation.

Yesterday, on an xjw mailing list, I responded to someone who was asking how to respond to a Witness who had sent by email a number of arguments designed to prove that God works through an organization (what the JW had actually done was to send the actual text of the Reasoning book section on "Organization" - God forbid that a JW should have an original thought). One of the responses I suggested was that, even if God does work through an organization, the history of JWs provides plenty of evidence that it could not be their organization. But, obviously, from the JW point of view it is a given that, if they can prove that God has an organization, it must be theirs. They usually fail to see the subtle distinction between the two conclusions, because their faith ultimately rests, not in the Bible, but in the Watchtower. The Bible may say "A", and the Watchtower says that when the Bible says "A", it really means "A+B+C"; therefore the JW accepts the whole teaching as being 'scriptural'. (Even worse is when the Bible says "A", but the Watchtower says, "Yes, but in saying 'A', the scripture really means 'Z'" --- don't get me going!)

Anyway, the point of all this is that a similar situation exists with regard to disfellowshipping. Is it scriptural for incorrigible sinners to be removed from a Christian congregation? Absolutely, and the JWs will gleefully cite numerous scriptures that testify to that. And because the scripture says "A", they will also accept the "B" and "C" that are added by the Watchtower, utterly without scriptural support, i.e. secret judicial committees, absolute shunning of family members, disfellowshipping for organizational offenses, etc.

Someday, I would like to gather all my thoughts on this subject and put together a thorough essay, because it's a topic that really gets under my skin. However, I'm not sure I could add much to what Ray Franz has already said in In Search of Christian Freedom

Tom
"The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan

That's silly.

That's even sillier. When you became one of Jehovah's Witnesses you had to meet certain qualifications. You didn't just walk in off the street and say you were a Witness. You had to become approved. You agreed to live by Christian morals and you also accepted the consequences of being disapproved by the congregation if ever you flagrantly violated the Bible's standard. You also agreed to accept the authority of the Watchtower Society to establish what was going to be taught as official doctrine within the congregation. You acknowledged as well the authority of the older men within the congregation and you agreed to be submissive to them. If now you no longer agree to any of those tenets of your faith you are no longer qualified to be one of Jehovah's Witness. And just as you had to originally be accepted and approved by the congregation in order to qualify as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you can also be disapproved and judged as unfit to be associated and recognized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. / You Know

You Know,
With all due respect, your depiction of a prospective new JW and his complete awareness of all the ramifications of his commitment, is disingenous.
Acknowledgement by baptismal candoidates of the principles of ``submission to'' and ``cooperation with'' the appointed servants and the central organization are seldom understood by them to mean the total uncritical obedience they are in pracice, once baptized.
Nor are they often made fully aware that the the consequences of expulsion apply not only the serious sins but also to the relatively trivial offenses, i.e, expressing any misgivings, however tactfully or respectfully uttered.
Any dictionary will confirm that the terms ``submission'' and ``cooperation'' are in no way synonymous with the near-total knee-jerk subservience to human authority.
Also, as a student of the Society's history, you must be aware that, in contrast with the immutable constancy of Divine Law, the severity of the current policies date from the ``apostate scare'' of the post-Ray Franz era.
Whatever one thinks of him personally, any contemporary of his at Bethel knows that the his info is, as the English say ``spot on.'' What you may fail to appreciate is that at least some of us who are currently disaffected with Brooklyn wish it weren't so -- but wishes ain't gonna change anything. Among the rank and file, naivete about how the Society operates is endemic.

We know that Jews did not interact socially with Gentiles and conisdered tax collectors as traitors. But what evidence is there that Jews shunned Gentiles, refused to speak to them or answer their questions or the publicans' demand for payment? What would the Romans have done to a Jew who turned aside from a publican at his door to collect Caesar's tax?