When did DF'ing & DA'ing start?

by gymbob 10 Replies latest jw friends

gymbob

Does anyone know exactly when the first mention of disfellowshipping and disassociating appeared in the publications?
nicolaou

Hmmm, just think. Someone, somewhere has the dubious distinction of being the first person disfellowshipped from the org'.
jaguarbass

I know it was going on in the 70's when I was going to meetings.
free2beme

The first time someone said this to an elder ...
"I think you might have made a mistake"
... suddenly new understanding sprung up and now we have new light on disfellowshiping.
uninformed

best of my knowledge it disfellowshipping started in the early 50's.
disassociation only applied for a long time to someone who joined the military and "by their course of action showed they were no longer one of JW's".
u
uninformed

I did find a reference to disfellowshipping in a 47 WT. This is the first article I found on it though. Brant
***
w52 3/1pp.137-138ProprietyofDisfellowshiping***
Propriety
ofDisfellowshiping
IS IT proper to disfellowship? Yes, as we have just seen in the above article, God put out of his congregation those that were opposed to him and that were corrupt. He disfellowshiped them. He got rid of them, and he advises us to do so with such persons. At Titus 3:10, 11 (NW) we read: "As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition, knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned." So there is authority in the Greek Scriptures for anyone that starts sects or divisions to be rejected after he has been talked to a first and a second time and still he does not change his course of action.

2
We have other authority, too, in Romans 16:17, 18 (NW): "Now I exhort you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching which you have learned, and avoid them. For men of that kind are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own bellies, and by smooth talk and complimentary speech they seduce the hearts of guileless ones." Here we have a plain statement from God’s Word that we should get rid of these persons that cause offense and divisions within His congregation. We have the authority, we have the right, and it is proper to get rid of them. They have no place in the congregation of God. Christ Jesus even disfellowships on what we probably might think less grounds than all of the things described above. Just because a person is lukewarm, and he is neither hot nor cold, Christ Jesus spews him out. He also declares, at Revelation 3:16 (NW): "So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth." Well, that is a disfellowshiping. Christ Jesus is not going to have any lukewarm persons permanently in his organization. You are either for him or against him. You will either come into the congregation of the Lord God and be his minister or eventually go out into the Devil’s organization. You cannot pussyfoot. You cannot be lukewarm. You cannot be passive. You have to be positively for the Lord God.
3
God disfellowships, too. We have seen that in the examples given above, but we remember that in Matthew 23:38 (NW) Jesus, speaking to Jerusalem, said: "Look! your house is abandoned to you." He had been dealing with the Jews for a long period of time, and now the time had come to abandon them and their house or temple. Why? Because he had nursed them along and taken care of them like a hen with its little chicks, but they did not pay any attention to his Father in heaven, and now the time had come for God to abandon the whole business because they furnished only a faithful remnant and he was obliged to call out from the Gentile nations a people for his name.
4
At 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (NW) the apostle Paul said: "What fellowship does light have with darkness? . . . And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said: ‘I shall reside among them and walk among them, and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.’ ‘"Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves," says Jehovah, "and quit touching the unclean thing,"’ ‘"and I will take you in."’ ‘"And I shall be a father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me," says Jehovah the Almighty.’" Yes, Jehovah will disfellowship those who become lawless, turn to darkness and set up idols. He will expel such persons from his organization. If you want to be of the Lord’s organization, keep clean of the Devil’s world. If you do not want to, then get out of it. Those who are impure, immoral, are not spiritually fit for God’s organization. If such lukewarm compromisers or apostates do not voluntarily get out of his organization, then under his direction the organization itself will put them out.
onacruse

w 10/1/1879 Reprints page 40
While we have not felt disposed to disfellowship anyone on account of a difference of opinion on these things, or for any other opinion as long as we are satisfied of the Christian integrity of brethren, there has been difference enough to prevent the same hearty cooperation as formerly, especially as there has been manifested a disposition to urge these disputed points as test questions. Paul and Barnabas separated in their work for a reason not half so important, but Christ was not divided, and we do not read of either one calling each other hard names or disfellowshipping each other as Christians. But the effort is now put forth to create a division before the Bridegroom comes (which is supposed by them to be future) such as will justify the claim that we are the "Foolish Virgins" of the parable.
This was in the context of a "parallelism" discussion re: the period from 1874-1878.
In those days, df'ing was done by congregation (then called 'ecclesias') hearing and vote.
onacruse

As a lengthy example of a notorious disfellowshipping in the late 30s:

W 5/15/37 159
LETTERS RE: EVIL SERVANT
Dear Brother Rutherford:
April 12, 1937
Re Salter’s letter: The following telegram was sent from this office on Saturday morning to each large company in Canada: "Salter’s letter and instruction not from Society. Fraudulent. lgnore it."
On Saturday evening a meeting was arranged and the following were present: The servant of companies, his assistant, Brother Sinclair, a faithful brother who has been long associated with the Toronto company, and myself. It was decided that the following afternoon, at the time of the assembly of all the units for service discussion, a motion be introduced to disfellowship W. F. Salter from the Toronto company.
Sunday afternoon at the service meeting I was in the chair, and toward the end of the meeting the position was put before the brethren, of whom there would be between 300 and 400 assembled. The envelope with the Society’s address and the printed letter to yourself from Salter were displayed, and the covering unsigned instructions were read to the company so that the brethren should realize the wickedness of those who were responsible for this action. Many of the elder brethren expressed their disgust at such an action. Brother Sinclair then came forward and read to the church the matter prepared. A copy of this is enclosed.
Someone in the hall then raised the question whether Brother Salter was present, and the chairman stated that if he were he would be able to hear for himself what was being said, and if he were not, he would be notified.
A. G. Cameron, former company servant and friend of W. F. Salter, raised his voice in favor of the letter, stating amongst his remarks, "I know the article in question; I have read it, and read it carefully. It is true that Brother Salter has challenged Brother Rutherford to answer it point by point, and I now challenge you, Brother Chapman, to answer it point by point and deal with it faithfully, because I firmly believe that the church has arrived at the crossroads. Up to this day we have all followed men, blind leaders of the blind and all making to the ditch. It cannot be denied that as an organization we have been mistaken in the past many times, and it cannot be denied that we are mistaken now." To this the answer was given from the chair: "I am glad you have shown yourself at last, Brother Cameron. It has taken you twelve months to show yourself in your true colors." The whole company evidenced their agreement by an unusual outburst of clapping.
Pointed remarks were then made by Brother Guest regarding Salter, showing that for at least three years he had not been in harmony with the organization. A sister in the rear of the hall (afterwards confirmed to be Salter’s former stenographer) asked if she might speak. It was ruled by the chairman, however, that the brothers were capable of dealing with the matter. Other brothers then expressed themselves in no uncertain way regarding their attitude toward this scheme to hurt the Lord’s people. Cameron endeavored to hold the floor again, no doubt trying to regain something he had lost. The time was getting on and there had been ample discussion to clearly show what was the mind of the church on the motion, and therefore the chairman did not give permission for him to speak further. Cameron shouted out several times, and refused to recognize the ruling of the chair. The company was then appealed to by the chairman as to whether they wished to hear Cameron or not, and they replied with a great shout "No."
Brother Sinclair was then called upon to again read and move the resolution. It was seconded, and the whole church were in favor, with the exception of three dissenting votes. These were Cameron, his daughter and G. Richardson. The meeting then closed.
This morning the servant of companies is sending a copy of the resolution passed by the church to W. F. Salter by registered mail, so that we will be sure he receives it.
Re: the resolution: Would you approve of a copy of this resolution’s being sent to the companies in Canada, so that they may be made aware of the decision of the Toronto company? Several brethren have stated that they would be glad if this could he arranged.
This morning many telephone calls have been received from brethren in different parts of Toronto stating that a copy of the printed letter has been received by them in the early morning post. These letters were posted in Toronto at 11:30 p.m. Saturday.
It is very evident that it was thought that the brethren and this office would be deceived, and conclude that these arrangements had actually come from Brooklyn. It would also appear that a discussion of these points was anticipated yesterday, and hence a follow-up of the work by sending the letter to many brethren in Toronto for this morning.
The discussion of yesterday afternoon, and the decision by the church, has had the effect of giving the church an immediate stimulus to further activity, and it has assisted some brethren, who had wondered about Salter and Cameron, to have no further doubts, and to make straight paths for their feet.
With warm love, I am
Your brother and servant in Him,
P. Chapman
COPY OF RESOLUTION PREPARED AND MOVED BY BROTHER W. A. SINCLAIR, AND PASSED
Almost a year ago the Society’s president, Brother Rutherford, saw fit to remove from office one to whom for years we had looked with confidence for leadership in the Lord’s work here in Toronto. At the time, and subsequently, through The Watchtower and Year Book for 1937, the principles underlying this course of action and the reason for it were expressed.
At the time that the change of servant took effect, many in our midst looked for some word from the brother discharged to indicate sorrow, repentance or reformation in his attitude toward the Society and brethren. Since that time, many others have patiently waited for some statement tending to clear the situation. Many have wondered as to the course of action to take.
Thus far, no public acknowledgment has been made.
In the last month or two, Brother Rutherford has quietly made arrangements for the greatest and strangest campaign against the enemy organization that has ever been undertaken under the Lord’s direction. On the eve of that campaign the Devil has seen fit to throw (as he thought) a bombshell into our midst, and we, as well as others, are in receipt of planted matter to be read among and disseminated among the brethren and purporting to be sent by the Society. Associated with this literature is the name of W. F. Salter. Needless to say, a serious consideration of this matter would, to say the least, tend to doubt and dissension among the brethren.
I therefore move the following resolution:
"That in view of the facts set forth above, we, the company of Jehovah’s nitnesses to Toronto and vicinity, failing to receive in the course of the next seven days, in writing, a clear statement of sorrow, repentance and reformation from the brother, do hereby disfellowship the one known as Brother W. F. Salter."
Dear Brother Rutherford:
April 16, 1937
To hand this morning is a further letter published by W. F. Salter. It was forwarded by Brother Hersec, who is at present doing a little pioneer work in Port Huron. I am forwarding this to you immediately in case it has not yet been brought to your attention. This is the first one to come to our notice. I feel compelled to write a word to you that you may know of my love for you.
It has been my privilege to work in the Society’s office for the last fourteen years, and during that time I have grown to
W 5/15/37 160
truly love you because you magnify Jehovah’s name. Year after year your fearlessness in boldly facing all manner of opposition to publicly hold forth the Word of life, in exposing the Devil’s schemes and all forms of false worship in the church as well as out of it, in assisting Jehovah’s anointed and the people of good-will, is complete testimony to your unselfish devotion to Jehovah, and that his favor, protection and blessing is with you in its fullness.
Your love for the brethren has been demonstrated over and over again by considering their needs. This is true, not only concerning the pioneers, but also toward the Bethel family in London, with whom I was privileged to associate and serve for many years. Your stay at the Bethel home in London was always a joy to look forward to. We knew you had our interests at heart, and you never spared yourself to find ways and means to show your love for us, and to make us happy in the Lord and in his service. This is without contradiction. It has been my experience to know you as an elder brother; yes, and time and again as a father and true counselor.
Again I repeat that I love and respect you as the president of the Society, because Jehovah has honored you with His great service. I know from personal experience that you are true, just and full of love for Jehovah and his people, who are your brethren.
The Bethel family also go on record as declaring their love for you, and that not out of hearsay, but out of close association with you. I am pleased to enclose with my own above declaration the one sent from the whole Bethel family.
Your brother and servant in the Lord,
P. Chapman
Dear Brother Rutherford:
April 16, 1937
Twelve months ago you saw fit to remove from office W. F. Salter, who had been reported to you as not being loyal to the organization, and now, after twelve months, he has clearly shown his hand as being against the Lord, the Society and yourself. Therefore, we, the Bethel family at Toronto, make known the following:
That for years W. F. Salter showed himself to be thoroughly selfish, egotistical, and had an undue sense of his own importance. He had not been loyal to you nor to the organization. From the platform and in private conversation he would consistently try to undermine your influence in the minds of the friends, and impress them with his own ideas.
Also that for years he questioned that which came from the Watch Tower, questioned the evidence of the Lord’s being at His temple, and endeavored to put doubt into the minds of the brethren as to Jehovah and Christ Jesus’ being our teachers.
For this man now to pose as loving the Lord and his people clearly marks him as a hypocrite and a liar. Therefore we go on record that our full devotion is toward the Lord and the interests of his kingdom. Not only have we full confidence in the Lord that He is directing His organization and His work, but also that He has placed you in charge of the direction of the earthly affairs of His people.
This family is now at unity, whole-hearted in Jehovah’s service, and now dwells in peace, and unanimously sends this statement to you.
With our warm love to you, we are
Your BETHEL FAMILY at TORONTO
greendawn

Rutherford expelled a few people that became too troublesome for him eg Moyle who went on to win a court case against the WTS for libel and was awarded $40 000. Moyle was deeply disappointed by the so called spiritual paradise of the HQ in Brooklyn and he let it be known. However it was Franz with Knorr that at some stage introduced the ruthless DFing process.
onacruse

The current practice of having a committee action instead of a congregational action started in 1944:

w 5/15/44 151
...
This brings up the questions: Is there anything in the Bible as to disfellowshiping brethren and as to a congregation’s taking a vote to have this done? Or, do the admonitions at Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14 state the limit of what should be done, namely, to avoid those causing division and to have nothing to do with them? Such questions call for the consideration of the words of the Head of the church, Christ Jesus, to his disciples: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican [a tax-collector]." (Matthew 18:15-17) Jesus’ words corresponding to these are found at Luke 17:3, 4: "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."
The course above outlined by the great Peacemaker is for the purpose of keeping peace and unity among the brethren, rather than stirring up discord by talebearing and whispering. In times past those words of the Lord have been interpreted to this effect: That, where one member of the church sins against another, the matter is, after due process, to be brought before a whole congregation. There it should be discussed and argued out. Then a vote should be taken by stretching forth the hand of each member of the congregation in a democratic-voting manner. Thus the congregation must indicate its determination of what should be done with the one found guilty.
Putting such a meaning into our Lord’s words, however, has served to cause more controversy and disruption among congregations in times past than almost any other thing. Undue heat of contrary opinions has been stirred up and undue measure of time and attention has been taken from the Lord’s work of preaching the good news of the Kingdom.
W 5/15/44 152
Reasonably, that could not be what the Lord purposed by giving such instructions. When methods produce the wrong results, then it is wise and timely to examine the methods hitherto used to determine whether such are Scriptural or not.
It must always be kept in mind that God’s organization of his people is Theocratic, not democratic. The laws of his organization come from himself, the great Theocrat, Jehovah, the Supreme One. The laws of the organization do not draw their strength and validness from the voice or vote of the congregation and are not applied because of the consent of the governed. "For Jehovah is our judge, Jehovah is our lawgiver, Jehovah is our king; he will save us." (Isaiah 33:22, ARV) Quaintly put, a Theocratic organization is ruled from the top down (which means from the Most High God downward) and not from the bottom up (that is, from the people of the congregation upward) It is true that the Head of the church did say that the one sinned against, who fails to gain his brother, should at length tell the matter to the church or congregation. However, Jesus did not say that the entire congregation should sit like a body of Supreme Court justices of last appeal and should have the case fully aired, and then vote in democratic manner after hearing and arguing the case. The words of Jesus at Matthew 18:15-17, as above quoted, go farther than the like words at Luke 17:3, 4, above quoted. Jesus’ words in both Scripture citations agree with the law at Leviticus 19:17, 18: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."
At 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, the apostle Paul argues against taking matters of difference between brethren into worldly courts, and says that the saints shall judge the world and angels and hence should be able to judge matters between themselves. Yet that is not saying that the entire congregation is constituted to sit as a court before which the cases of sin among the brethren against one another are to be submitted for final adjustment. Paul did not say that the entire congregation must consume time, attention and nervous energy in trying such cases, thereby focusing their attention upon sin and the due punishment of it. The congregation is the Lord’s own. Therefore, when a brother has been sinned against by another and he finally brings it to the congregation and tells it, the Theocratic rule should be observed in the congregation.
The matter for straightening out should not be aired before the whole congregation for judgment, and take up everybody’s time and consideration. It should be quietly laid before the representative members of the congregation or company, the ones that are charged with the responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the brethren and for the direction of their service to the Lord. The case recorded at Deuteronomy 21:18-21 illustrates this way of proceeding in an orderly, Theocratic manner. The record reads: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened hiln, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." According to this procedure, the hearing of the case and the rendering of the decision should be confined to the representative brethren, as pictured by the city elders, not elective elders as in religious organizations, but elders who are such due to Christian knowledge, growth and experience. Their decision must be according to Theocratic law. After they render the decision, the congregation may hear about the matter and may concur in the decision and in the action due.

When did DF'ing & DA'ing start?

Share this