Are we pro-shunning or against it?

by Simon 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Simon

  Just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the WTS, I've also been thinking about 'shunning'.

  I think shunning is THE most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common. It is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and I was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.

  Of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the Watchtower believes in shunning therefore the Watchtower is bad. They need to stop it. End of discussion.

  The reality is a little more nuanced and if we're not careful we find ourselves campaigning for the wrong thing. Actually, we can find ourselves campaigning both for and against the same thing at the same time. The problem is we tend to focus on the case in hand - usually how things relate to us and how we have been treated.

  So let me start by asking you this - is the concept of shunning, that is 'ejecting someone from the group and not associating with them', always 100% justified or 100% wrong?

  Of course if someone says "y'know what, I was brought up in this religion but now I've learnt to think for myself and I've had an education, I've decided that I just don't believe this stuff. Sorry mom and dad, I'm off" then it seems reasonable to say that such a person should not be shunned and it's cruel for any group to put any pressure on parents to shun their children simply because they want to move on. They may have childhood friends they have grown up with and likewise pressuring those to stop associating with someone would be cruel.

  Now suppose the person doesn't stop believing but is involved with drugs and crime. Maybe they go off the rails, join a gang and they want to entice others to follow them. It seems less clear-cut now - the shunning seems to fall more into the area of "protecting the congregation" doesn't it? Of course you could argue that support and help would be better but it's hard to generalize for every case.

  What though if they don't commit any crimes but they are just one of those "bad kids". You know the sort, they are experts at skating close to the line but never being caught going over it. Maybe they prey on young girls in the congregation and take advantage of their naivety. Should they be removed to protect people?

  The easier case is with actual sex offenders who prey on underage children. That seems like a no-brainer doesn't it - people like that should simply not be welcome at or included in any events that families and children attend.

  So tell me again. Should shunning be practiced or not?

  Isn't the real issue not that we don't agree or disagree with shunning per-se, but that we disagree with who should and shouldn't be shunned and why.

  We know that the WTS is over-eager to shun people when it comes to "belief in them" - express any doubt about their representing god and bam, you are out the door. Likewise, when it appears there are people that out of all cases should definitely be shunned such as abusers we find them slow to act and frequently doing nothing.

  The problem is when we try to campaign for them to "stop shunning" they can do a little switcharoo and start talking about people who should actually be shunned - who would disagree with those? Likewise when we campaign for them to take a tougher stance against predators within the congregation they can twist things to try and show them attempting to be patient and loving (puke).

  I think it's important then when talking about both is that we either talk about specifics (people being shunned solely because they leave the faith, not for breaking rules) OR we link their tardiness to reporting and shunning sex offenders to their eagerness to shun those who question their authority to show that their actions are not based on any christian ethic.

  For the record, I think shunning is wrong except for cases when the person should probably be removed from society as a whole (making their shunning largely irrelevant) and it demonstrates that any group who does it fundamentally knows their beliefs are weak and cannot stand up to any questions.

  But, it's a freedom them have. It's impossible to force a group of people to associate with you and if people are willing to follow those particular beliefs then people will continue to be shunned and there is little to do but tell the world how painful and unjust it usually is.
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  For most of the modern history, religion has been mostly based on "not judging". I mean religion itself, not individuals. Individuals tend to judge no matter what they believe on or not believe at all. Point being is that, for the most part, anyone, even a criminal, is thought to have a right to spirituality and the right to enter a church and have the ultimate freedom of confessing the worst atrocities, just as if he was talking in confidentiality with God. The priest being the representative of God.

  Speaking exclusively about shunning (and not on wether the priest should be obligated to report the confessed crime), one should be given the right to shun a family member whom you consider a danger to your family. I won't be surprised to find out some of us do that. I have a member on my family who killed his lover while having his own wife and kids. We definitely don't want anything with that guy. But we do so out of our own conscience, and God would ultimately judge wether we acted properly or not. There is huge giant gap between that, and the fact that a religion will use its power to convince you to shun someone you don't know all that well, just because he disagreed with said religion. If they want to allow a pedophile to enter the church because he is "repentant", then by all means proceed. But let authorities handle the matter and so that the members become aware. We will then individually choose to shun him or not and wether we do so forever or just until he or she earns our trust again.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  There are specific people that I avoid. Former business associates, for example, where business deals did not go well and in fact, I feel they screwed me out of some serious money. I shun them. I won't do business with them again. I have no interest in socializing with them, or going to dinner or drinks with them, or even chit chatting about how their family is doing. I SHUN THEM. That is MY choice.

  The problem with the WT Org (or any other) is that they force their members to shun others; they mandate shunning against others, and impose severe consequences against anyone who personally chooses to ignore their rule. Any person/member should have the freedom of choice when choosing their associates. WT says every member has personal freedom in this, but this is not true because they will inflict emotional harm on a person who refuses their "command" to shun friends or family. They remove an individual's personal choice by their treats of emotional blackmail.
  

  That is the practice of a cult.

  Doc
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Startrekangel, you make a valid point.

  I don't think the issue is 'shunning' per se, but, rather, whether 'official shunning' should be in place.

  Of course we all make decisions on who to associate with - it is normal human behavior. And, in so doing, we all shun to some extent. I do. I have many people I have made a personal decision to 'shun' (family members included). It is called 'keeping my environment safe'. And I have the right to do that. Personally.

  BUT - does an organization have the right to shun? Or the right to tell its members who to shun?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I think the average ex-JW or JW who dislikes Watchtower's shunning program is not because either objects to the notion of shunning but, rather, because the method used by Watchtower lacks transparency and employs star-chamber tactics.

  By comparison, the biblical instance where Paul supposedly recommended a congregation shun an individual he went on to tell everyone the precise reason for his recommendation. Supposedly the man was immorally living with his own father's wife. Okay. So now members of that congregation knew the issue and could therefore decide whether they would shun the individual. Watchtower's program does not do this. The supposed "sin" for which a JW might be shunned for could be a completely moral act of demanding answer to a question that deserves an answer. On top of this we have the problem of star-chamber tactics.
• 

  Island Man

  Personally, I'm against shunning. And by shunning I'm referring to strict shunning as practiced by JWs, as opposed to merely avoiding someone who you prefer not to socialize with, but whom you will still casually greet and exchange a few words with out of basic human respect, should your paths happen to cross.

  Speak to someone bad in a less than friendly manner, reminding them of what they are doing or have done wrong and the need to change or make redress. Do that instead of shunning them. To me, strict shunning as practiced by JWs, is both childish and inhuman.

  I also think the punishment of solitary confinement is like the government's version of shunning, and I'm also very much against it. Humans are social beings and such treatments are inhumane.
• 

  Simon

  By comparison, the biblical instance where Paul supposedly recommended a congregation shun an individual he went on to tell everyone the precise reason for his recommendation.

  They didn't have libel / slander laws back in those days. The irony is that the laws that prevent them telling people what someone has done wrong then provide the cover to allow them to boot anyone who simply disagrees with them over any issue under the guise that "they must have done something"

  Personally, I'm against shunning. And by shunning I'm referring to strict shunning as practiced by JWs

  I think "strict shunning" is a good distinction to make and definition to use. I'm sure most people don't really understand what it actually means in the context of the WTS. I know when I've explained it to friends they are genuinely shocked that one day your friends and family refuse to have anything to do with you based on the say-so of their leaders.

  Their is no transparency and no appeal process.
• 

  JeffT

  I think the problem with the JW version of shunning is the official enforcement based on a poor understanding of a biblical incident. Paul wrote about a specific incident, which the WTBS has generalized into a policy statement. Paul did not actually tell the congregation to kick out the sinner, he wrote a letter which would have been read out in public. He pointed out the man's reprehensible conduct and asked why the put up with it. There is no threat to anybody if they chose not to follow his advice.

  Note that in his next letter he had to tell them to let the man back in when he changed his behavior. They went to the extreme on the matter and he had to call them out on that.

  I've been around other churches since leaving the Watchtower. I've never seen anybody shunned, although I have seen public call outs to change behavior. The attitude of main stream churches is to heal people, not punish them. They also do background checks on people working volunteer positions. I don't think they prevent people from volunteering entirely, they do keep molesters away from children, and thieves away from the contribution box.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  They didn't have libel / slander laws back in those days.

  Laws haven't bothered Watchtower when it wants to practice something. Watchtower just does what it wants under a banner of freedom of religion and asserts it as a theological position untouchable by courts in lands that embrace religious freedom as an inalienable right.

  Watchtower does this with military induction. If a JW wants to join the military Watchtower has local elders treat the person as disassociated. But at least everyone knows why the person is, in effect, disfellowshipped. Watchtower does the exact same thing with JWs who conscientiously accept transfusion of blood.

  If Watchtower wanted to do this with other "sins" it could. But it does not want to enable this level of transparency across the board because it would let elders reveal to everyone that Johnny disassociated because he was demanding answers to questions that deserved answers.

  And, by the way, the slander/libel law in ancient times was that community leadership would stone you to death if they didn't like what you were saying.
• 

  sir82

  As others have stated, the issue with the WTS is not "shunning" per se.
  

  The issue is enforced, compulsory shunning imposed upon members. "If you don't shun person X, you too will be shunned". That's the evil part.