When did Disfellowshipping start?
Pastor Russell Df'd one of his enemies. This is from an 1894 WT special edition where CTR defends himself from fraud charges then DF's the accuser.
Secondly, the brother or sister (believer in the ransom), who, by a disorderly walk and conversation, brings reproach upon the cause of Christ, is to be withdrawn from and to be treated "as a heathen man and a publican," that is, in all respects as though he were not a brother-as an erring brother disowned and disfellowshipped until such time as he shall fully and freely confess his fault and ask forgiveness.
The question therefore is, what should be our attitude toward these conspirators? Would the Lord have us continue to fellowship them and think and speak of them as "Brethren," or not? They have not yet denied the ransom, although some views expressed by two of them, recently, look as though they were getting onto dangerous ground, in their endeavor to find something that they can present as strictly new and original. And to our knowledge they are [HGL135] soliciting financial aid from the "no-ransom" folks who "walk no more with us," and are "enemies of the cross of Christ;" and it is but reasonable to suppose that they will seek to please those who will aid them, and that those who give aid will expect favor at their hands.
For my own part I have concluded that it is our duty to fellowship them as brethren no longer; and that each may be able to decide the question for himself.....
Wow, was this guy full of himself or what? DF'd for what he thought they might be doing in the future??
Nowhere in the Bible does the form of disfellowshipping practiced by the Society supported. It was never a punishment that was handled by the elders and there was never rules like you have to attend meetings for a certain length of time before you could be reinstated. The biblical terms for "marking" and not "associating" are the same, yet the Society presents it as 2 different things.
if you decide to leave the org and not claim to be a part of it thereby not causing any disrepute to the cong, then why shouldnt family relationships be allowed to continue? who is causing harm? for me an act that can cause clear psychological damage is not a sign of a loving organisation.
It comes across like they want revenge
Disfellowshipping was a perfect way to purify the ranks and prevent anyone from talking to people who had doubts, questions, or doubted the power of the men in charge. It started before there was a governing body because that didn't come along till after Frantz was in after Knorr. So it was used by Knorr who a nasty peace of work to get rid of people who questioned the authority of men like him and Freddy. Both of them were nuts.
Started by Rutherford.
What Pastor Russell Said p 479
Meetings Elders in Court of Inquiry Questions 1916"Is it proper for the elders to sit at a court of inquiry and cite any supposed to be walking in a disorderly manner to appear before them and explain their conduct?" Or should the Lord's advice at Matt 18:15-18 be followed?
Answer - "I agree with the suggestion of the question that it should be handled in harmony with the Lord's direction in the passage cited. The Lord's word does not authorize any court of the Elders, or anyone else, to become busybodies. THis would be going back to the practices of the Dark Ages during the inquisition; and we would be showing the same spirit as did the inquisitors. The Lord has put the matter in a simple way and we could not improve upon it......We should remember the word of the Lord which says, 'The Lord will judge his people.' If he should need any punishment, we may trust the Lord to give it to him and not take the matter into our own hands. We should have confidence in the Lord. If we can stop the wrong that is as far as we can go. But if the wrong doer should persist in his wrong-doing and not repent, and if the matter should be of sufficient importance, then we are to bring the matter to the attention of the of the Church for correction. We should not bring any small or trifling matter. It is my judgment that 3/4 of the things which are brought to my attention - had better be dropped. However there might be an exception in case the matter had gone beyond the individual and had somehow involved the whole congregation. In such an event it might be impossible to deal with the matter in an individual way. Then 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. When the matter gets beyond the individual, we have no advice beyond the Word of God. Let us be careful not to become like Babylon and hold inquisition and mix ourselves up. The Word of God is our sufficiency and we should follow it closely and thereby avoid confusion."
The beginnings started with the 1894 WT quoted and have been refined over the years. The quote you have from 22 years later almost sounds like a contradiction or change of thought from CTR. Either way, to be DF'd in CTR time it had to be a crime of the most serious nature, 'denying JC completely' not simply just a disagreement with the GB.
Would you mind posting it.
Sorry dissed, I missed your post. Df'g is of course not unscriptural. It's ubiquitous from the cover to cover in Scripture. But it obviously has to be very serious and can't be decided upon by 3 men behind a curtain with everyone just left wondering what happened to 40,000 of their brethren that get thrown under the bus every year and told it's "a loving provision." And of course that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the total number of other victims of the wtbt$ organizational control tactics and witch-hunts. So I don't think Br Russell is back peddling at all.