I was just wondering and if so...is there a WBTS publication that shows this? Thanks for the info.
Blessings...
Did all disfellowshipping begin in 1952?
by middleman 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Nathan Natas
This is from the INDEX TO WATCHTOWER PUBLICATIONS, 1930-1985, under the listing on "disfellowshipping" in that index:
DISFELLOWSHIPPING
(See also Discipline; Excommunication; Forgiveness; Judicial Committee; Repentance; Reproof [Reproving])
(Note centered heading below: Quotations)
alcoholics:
when to disfellowship: w83 5/1 10-11
announcement: om 148
appeals: om 147-8; w59 179
association with disfellowshipped: w85 7/15 30-1; w81 9/15 25-6; w70 351-2; w63 151, 413-14; w61 159-60; w56 566; w55 607; w53 223; w52 703-4, 735
wisdom of not eating with disfellowshipped persons: w83 6/15 14-15
basis for: w83 1/1 31
Bible examples: w83 2/1 11; w82 4/1 17-18; w81 9/15 21; w65 144-5; w64 272, 434; w63 405; w62 534-5; w61 435; w59 171; w58 210; w54 591; w52 135-7;w44 153
children: om 151-2; w81 9/15 28; w74 470-1; w63 444-5
claim of invalid baptism: w60 159-60
clergy attitude toward: w83 6/15 26
confession: om 145; w81 9/1 25-6; w72 437-8; w70 398-9; w63 473-4, 660; g61 5/8 6-7; w60 160, 728; w59 171-4; w56 566; w52 144
congregation file: km 2/74 8
disassociation: om 150-1; w85 7/15 30-1; w85 8/15 31; w82 1/15 31; w81 9/15 23; w72 124
proper way of handling: om 150-1; w84 7/1 31
discussion: om 142-9; w83 1/1 30-1; w81 9/15 16-31; w74 460, 463-73; ad 549-50; w63 409-14
disfellowshipped mate: w81 9/15 27-8
distinguishes Witnesses: w64 431; w60 506; w58 447; w54 13-15; w53 152; w52 131-45
effect on-
congregation growth: yb63 195-6, 246
family relationships: w81 9/15 26-31; w74 470-2
privileges in congregation: w83 3/15 29; w80 9/15 31; w65 497; w62 368
extending mercy: om 146; w81 9/1 22-7; w77 146-7, 149; w70 399; w63 410
for fraud:
proper view on restitution as a prior basis for reinstatement: w81 9/1 25-6; w77 152
forgiving adulterous mate: w83 12/15 27-9; w81 3/1 30-1; w81 11/1 21; w60 726-8; w58 95
funeral for disfellowshipped person: w81 9/15 31; w77 347-8
grounds: si 257; w83 3/15 31; w80 9/1 30; g78 6/22 28; w75 287; km 2/74 4, 6; w73 594; km 9/73 8; w72 543; ad 217, 550, 602; w67 127; g67 2/22 4; ms 163; w63 410-11, 413; w61 63-4, 96, 284-5, 596-7; yb61 133; g61 11/8 4; w60 159-60, 277-8, 684-5, 690, 725-8; w59 171, 176-9; w58 95, 209-20, 478; g58 3/22 26; g58 4/8 25-6; w56 345-8, 563-6, 590-8, 667-8; w55 126-7, 500, 607; w54 590-6; w52 133-5; w51 239-40; w49 240; w46 75-6
abandoning wife and eloping with another woman: w79 11/15 31-2; w76 728
apostasy: w83 4/1 22-4; km 8/80 1, 4
bestiality: w83 6/1 25
employment violating Christian principles: km 9/76 6
following mourning customs that involve false worship: w85 4/15 25
fraud: om 142-5
homosexuality: w83 6/1 24-6
incestuous marriage: w78 3/15 26
parents condoning immorality: w56 566
planned adultery to break Scriptural marriage ties: w83 3/15 29
refusal to cease fellowship with disfellowshipped: w81 9/15 25-6
how to treat disfellowshipped persons: w81 9/15 21-6
application of 2 John 9-11: w85 7/15 30-1
Clarke's (Adam) comment on: w81 9/15 22
if a minor child is disfellowshipped: w81 9/15 28
if a relative is disfellowshipped: w83 1/1 30-1; w81 9/15 26-31
when a business associate is disfellowshipped: w81 9/15 24
with regard to weddings: w84 4/15 15; w81 9/15 30
judicial committee: om 147-9; w70 396-7; w67 402-3; w66 541-2; w64 639; w63 409-14, 474; w62 632; w61 371; w60 726-8; w59 172-9; w57 125; w52 139-40, 142-4; w44 151-3
"let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" (Mt 18:17): om 147-9; w81 9/15 18-20
literature for disfellowshipped persons: or 174
meetings in private home: km 11/74 4
minor children who are baptized: om 151-2
nonbaptized associate: om 149; km 10/75 8
prayer for disfellowshipped persons: w79 10/15 31; w71 383-4
procedure: om 147-8; w60 726-8; w59 172-3; w52 138-41; w44 151-5
proper attitude toward disfellowshipped persons: w81 9/15 23-4; km 12/80 8; w65 412, 435; ms 164; w63 299, 411-12, 443-4; w62 534-6, 632; w61 275, 596-8; w56 668-9
proper view of: w85 4/1 12
purpose: w81 9/15 21; g78 6/22 28; w77 348; w74 460; w64 272, 431; w63 411, 661; w61 597; w59 173, 179; w56 667; w52 131-3, 704; w47 122-3
reinstatement: om 149-50; w81 9/15 25; w74 466, 468-9, 472-3; ad 550; w63 300, 412, 472-3, 509; w62 632; w60 333-4, 726, 728; w58 543; w54 543; w52 142-8
hearing pleas for: w77 152
relatives: w83 1/1 30-1; w81 9/15 26-31; w70 351-2
reporting one's own children: si 171; w61 596-7; w58 219; w56 566
reporting wrongdoing: om 145; w85 11/15 20-1; w72 465, 467; w64 639; w63 474, 660; g61 5/8 7; w58 219; w57 125, 216
Russell's comment on: w84 11/15 17
Scripturalness: si 212; w81 9/15 20-1, 25-6; w71 452-3; ad 549-50; w70 351, 404-5; w69 255-6; fm 146-7; w67 596; yl 28; ms 163; w64 431; w63 410-11, 659-60; w62 534-6, 632; w61 596-8; w60 506, 726; w52 134-5; w47 122; w44 152-3
statistics: yb80 11; yb79 31; w74 466; w73 42; yb72 170-1; w68 476; w65 373; w60 728; w59 170
number disfellowshipped for smoking: w76 123
when elders might admonish disfellowshipped persons: km 12/80 8
when made requirement: w77 347; w76 122; yb75 225-6; w67 596
when no repentance shown: om 146-7; w81 9/15 16-17; w77 692, 696-7
when one of the anointed is disfellowshipped: w76 158-9; w60 224; w58 478, 543
whether to investigate wrongdoers no longer associating: km 2/74 6
whether to take a disfellowshipped person to a worldly court: w73 703-4
"works that befit repentance" (Ac 26:20): w83 1/1 30-1
Quotations
entirely proper for Witnesses to enforce their own fellowship rules: w82 4/1 13
the great age of excommunication is past, with the possible exceptions of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons: w83 6/15 26
- - - end of extract - - -
As you can see there are a few references that predate 1952. Let's see what they say, shall we?
-
Nathan Natas
Those above citations boil down to just five articles, so I'll reproduce the articles here, page-by-page.
From The WATCHTOWER, May 15, 1944, page 151:
DISFELLOWSHIPING
21 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 tie 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]." (Matt. 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."
22 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.
23 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.
-
-
Nathan Natas
From The WATCHTOWER, May 15, 1944, page 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.
24 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." (Isa. 33: 22, Am. Start. Vet.) 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 neighbour, 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 neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."25 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.
26 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 him, 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.THE ORDERLY WAY
27 This course is supported by the way the apostles John and Paul proceeded, with due consideration for Jehovah’s Theocratic arrangement. At 3 John 9-11 it is written concerning a disturber that wanted to shine and be boss and lord it over others: "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God." In taking such action, John acted as a representative of the great Theocrat and as one of the twelve foundations of the church built upon Christ Jesus the Rock. (Rev. 21: 14) The situation he took in hand was one where an individual was sinning against his brethren and -
middleman
Cool thank-you so much I'll read this good stuff!
Blessings...
-
Nathan Natas
The WATCHTOWER, May 15, 1944, page 153:
thereby troubling the peace, unity and spiritual health of all the congregation. There was no congregational assembly and voting upon what should be done. The serious situation was brought to the attention of a most responsible representative of the Lord’s organization, possibly the sole survivor at that time of the twelve apostles. He advised what action he would take in behalf of the congregation.
28 Another responsible servant of the Theocratic organization, Jude, writes about divisionists : "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit." Or, rendered in plainer English: These are those who cause divisions [make separations]: they are men of the world, devoid of the spirit. But do you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith and praying in the holy spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ which issues in eternal life. On some who are in doubt you should have pity; others you must save, snatching them out of the fire; and on others have pity mingled with fear, while you hate even the garment stained by he flesh." (Jude 19-23, Weymouth; Am. Stan. Ver.) Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, does not include in his epistle any instructions for a congregational meeting and democratic voting.
29 At 1 Corinthians 5:1-7 the apostle Paul brings to view a case of sin between members of the congregation at Corinth, which case had become so notorious that it came within the knowledge of the congregation. However, it did not come to the congregation’s notice in the way outlined by Jesus at Matthew 18: 15-17. The sin was between a mother and son, and the mother did not bring the matter before the congregation. Instead, it was an offense by both parent and son against the entire company. The record reads: "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying ts not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened." Here the apostle Paul was duly handling "that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches".--2 Cor. 11:28.
30 As a representative of the Lord’s Theocratic organization Paul did, indeed, instruct that a congregational meeting be held, but not to vote with outstretched hand and indicate by a show of hands what was their judgment and decision on the matter. They were told to meet to confirm and apply the judgment already expressed by the Lord’s apostle. By putting from their midst this leaven of a case of fornication between mother and son it would tend to preserve the spirit of the Lord within the Christian congregation and would save it unto the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. The ones that had chosen to go in the way of Satan through committing fornication and to bring reproach upon the entire congregation thereby were to be ’delivered over to the one they had elected to serve till at last their flesh was destroyed’. The good of the congregation and of the witness work which it was carrying on demanded this obedience to Theocratic instructions for the organization.
31 It is apparent, therefore, that the congregation had not acted upon the case. So Paul, as the authorized Theocratic representative of the Lord, took the matter in hand. He advised the company the proper action to take to preserve the Lord’s spirit among them. He instructed for the dismissal of the offender from their assembly, saying: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without [the congregation] ? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (1 Cor. 5: 11-13) Later, when the genuine repentance of the dismissed offender became known, it was not the congregation or ecclesia that decided the re-admitting of the repentant one; it was the apostle Paul that ordered the receiving of such one back to their midst, as stated at 2 Corinthians 2:6-11 and 7: 8-12. The entire course taken by the Theocratic representative was, as he wrote, "that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you." The congregation, by acting on the reproof given them, showed wisdom: "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fooI."--Prov. 17: 10.
-
villabolo
Are they still disfellowshipping for joining the YMCA? I still remember reading that article fresh out of its brown paper wrapper. I believe it was the January 1st or 15th(?) 1979 watchtower under questions from readers. I was wondering if there were any updates on that specific rule since then.
It's a good point to bring up to non members since it is so bizarre.
-
Nathan Natas
The WATCHTOWER, May 15, 1944, page 154:
32 At 1 Timothy 5:19-21 the apostle writes: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." Such are not general instructions to all the congregation, authorizing anyone therein to take it upon himself to hear accusations and to deliver public rebukes and so make himself a spiritual policeman of the congregation. Be it noted that the apostle Paul was writing to a specially appointed servant to the brethren and an overseer of their interests, namely, Timothy. This young man in his relationship to the apostle pictures the present visible organization, the Christian "society" the Lord is using, in its relationship to Christ Jesus, "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession." (Heb. 3: 1) The apostle directed the overseer of the congregations to entertain the accusations against elder servants, but only before the proper number of witnesses; and also to give out public rebuke to sinners, for the wholesome effect that it would have upon others of the congregation. No such authority to act was delegated to the entire congregation. In all cases the apostle recognized the Theocratic rule within God’s visible organization and instructed accordingly.
33 Jesus’ words at Matthew 18:15-17 and Luke 17:3, therefore, mean that the one sinned against should rebuke his brother who offends against him. This agrees with Proverbs 25:8-12: "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame. Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another: lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away. A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures [frames] of silver. As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear."
34 If the sinner is wise, he will appreciate the calling of the offensiveness of his act to his attention privately instead of noising it about by talebearing and whispering, and he will ask forgiveness. (Prov. 17 : 10) If he does not respond to this direct personal admonition, the offended brother may next bring the matter to his attention again, for the sake of bringing about a reconciliation, if possible, but this time taking along with him two or three witnesses, not necessarily appointed servants in the congregation. These can witness the brother’s efforts at reconciling the offender and can add their weight to the admonition to him for his repenting and rectifying matters. As it is written: "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."--Jas. 5:19, 20.
35 If, now, the offender refuses to heed this second and reinforced admonition to a right course, then the offended one may tell it to the "church". According to Theocratic order, this would not mean to a congregational meeting with all present, but telling it to those charged with the care of the congregation and representing it in special service capacities. If he refuses to hear the church through its representative servants, then what? Does the Lord say the church or congregation should excommunicate the offender? No; but the Head of the church says to the offended one, whose efforts at reconciliation have failed: "Let him be unto THEE [not, unto the church] as an heathen man and a publican." The offended one may refuse to have anything further to do with such one until he comes for a reconciliation. Only where the peace and unity of an entire congregation are involved, and its activity in the Lord’s witness work is being disturbed and hindered, there the Theocratic organization steps in and must take action in behalf of the congregation, as illustrated in the words and actions of the apostle Paul.
36 Paul’s instructions were offered after the Lord Jesus said what he did at Matthew 18: 15-17. Hence Paul’s words show the proper procedure in congregational matters after Jesus had spoken as to personal matters. The point of the argument is, then, that brethren should seek to settle their personal matters between themselves rather than endanger and upset the good order, harmony, and united action of a congregation busy at getting Jehovah’s work done.
37 In all those cases of apostolic times it is the Lord, through his Theocratic organization as represented by its special servants, who instructs servants or congregations what to do. To the special servant Titus Paul wrote: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condenmed
of himself." That is: "After a first and second admonition, have nothing further to do with a man who causes divisions; for, as you know, a person of that sort has gone astray and is a sinner -
sir82
I seem to recall reading here or elsewhere that disfellowshipping was quite rare until that 1952 Watchtower. I'm betting that that is when a lot of the formal procedures (3-man committee, appeals, restrictions, etc.) were first delineated and universally applied. That 1944 Watchtower is awfully vague on actual procedure.
It would make for a fascinating study (OK, I'm a nerd) to trace out the organization's history of the use of disfellowshipping, from Russell's time down to the present.