When Is Disfellowshipping Appropriate?

by Englishman 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • proplog2

    When the scripture says you should bring someone before the congregation I think that is literal. The facts of the case would be presented before everyone in the congregation with each side stating its case and subject to examination by anyone who may have a question. People could refuse to answer questions. At the conclusion of the congregation hearing those attending would show hands about whether they feel the person should be part of the congretation. This would be a rebuke by the majority. However, individuals would still be able to decide on how they would personally view the accused.

    These "public" meetings would be optional and attended only by those who feel they have an interest in the situation. The tendency would be for most of these matters to be settled "out of court" that is with one or two witnesses perhaps arbitrating.

    This proecedure would alert congregations to all those who would harm them.. child molesters included. It would reveal to all the modus operandi of the perpetrator and would provide excellent lessons on how to avoid trouble.

    It would especially be useful in giving those with doctrinal differences a chance to explain their stand before being excommunicated for trying to start a sect.

  • somebody


    It would especially be useful in giving those with doctrinal differences a chance to explain their stand before being excommunicated for trying to start a sect.

    I have to make my opinion known starting from how you ended your point. my opinion is that the JW exist because of one person trying to start a sect to begin with, and he suceeded in doing so. If he would have failed, there would be no wbts worshippers to this day. Those who agreed with him and still do since he died still remain in the sect that he started on his own.

    I do believe that the hateful practice of handing people over to satan is just plain evil, for those who claim to be Christians. I also agree that if one is going to take bringing a sinner before the congregation, it would make so much more sence. that way wbts follwers could make up their own minds according to their own conscience on whether to treat them as if the sinner was dead, or the antichrist, or just a fellow sinner who needs love and just a friend to talk to. the whole cult, or sect, is a mess because of the fact that nobody can follow the bible in confessing sins to one another because if they do, then it's reported to the elders behind their backs. And from that point comes the pharisee practice of standing as judging what's in the heart of the sinner, and from there, condemmnation or marking. There is NO room or leighway for an individual to follow their own conscience or heart in showing love for thier loved ones or even enemies if they want that free will. Not without being handed over to satan for being accused of partaking of the sin of the sinner who came before the congregation. I guess it boils down to conformity versus unity. Somehow, they equal the same, just as the GB or "faithful and discreet slave" according to the wbts definition, equals God.

    because of that, this freedom you speak of..... "However, individuals would still be able to decide on how they would personally view the accused." ..........is not allowed or to be tolerated within the sect.


    I'm working on responding to your thoughts. Thank you for your points that speak the true truth.



    Hey E-man,WBTS thumps the bible,they don`t live by it.What else can you expect from decietful,manipulative,cronic liars?..>>>Hey lurc/yadirf/yo-yo/youknow/sexy-teen or who ever your calling yourself at this moment,you codone nessasary evil?Thats why scumbags like you need to be eliminated.....OUTLAW

  • somebody
    It would especially be useful in giving those with doctrinal differences a chance to explain their stand before being excommunicated for trying to start a sect.

    having doctinal differences in the cult of JWs is a sin of apostacy, according to not the Bible, but the leaders of the JW sect. But the sect teaches that people of other sects or religions who have doctrinal differences, should leave them. why? because any other group, or sect, or religion besides themselves, is of satan. According to not the Bilble, but the wbts.

  • gumby

    E-man: Quote... "You are absolutely correct, witness-style DF'ing is all about gagging, stopping someone from being heard".

    Not in all cases. If someone is df'ed for smoking,drunkeness,etc. the purpose to df is not to keep someone from talking. In these cases it is to clean out the chaff according to the society.

    In cases of child molestation,and similar cases, I can see a gag order type df'ing to stop the congregation or organization from looking bad.

  • AGuest

    Dearest Eman... may you have peace!

    May I respond and shed a little bit of "light" on this subject, as I have been granted to by my Lord? Thank you!

    First, let's truly understand where the WTBTS "tradition" of disfellowshipping originates from: Charles Taze Russell was a Congregationalist, from Pennsylvania... Amish territory. In its time (Russell's time) "shunning" was a BIG part of those "religions" and that area. The man was a product of his environment and taught this condemning, thus unloving, practice to his followers. Unfortunately, they, in their hard-hearted, stiff-necked blindness, still practice it today.

    Yet, my Lord himself literally went AFTER a man 'expelled' by the Pharisees... sought him ought. In whose "footsteps" then are we to "follow"?

    Paul, too, was a product of his environment, having been educated as a Pharisee. So, when he started out, he had MANY pharisaical habits, which the Jewish apostles had to correct from time to time (which is one of the reasons they stayed away from each other, truly). Thus, you will note that after having said what he did in 1 Corinthians (which is actually his SECOND letter), he RETRACTED it in his words at 2 Corinthians 2:1-11 (his THIRD letter), upon the correction of the others:

    "For this is what I have decided for myself...

    (Note, this was his THIRD time coming to them, and THIS time, he message was different than the previous two... 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 13:1)

    "For if I make YOU sad, who is there to cheer ME...
    except the one made sad BY me? And so I wrote THIS
    very thing
    (the letter of 2 Corinthians) that,
    when I come, I may not get sad BECAUSE OF THOSE...
    OVER WHOM I OUGHT TO REJOICE... because...

    and get this, please:

    "I have confidence in ALL OF YOU... that the joy
    I have... IS IN ALL OF YOU."

    So, Paul retracted his position that any one of them was lesser or more evil than any other. For joy is a "fruit" of my Father's spirit, and thus, even the man who Paul wanted disfellowshipped he now acknowledged had joy IN HIM... and thus, the spirit of God in him.


    "For out of much tribulation and anguish of heart
    I wrote you, NOT that you might be saddened
    they WERE!), but that you might know the LOVE that I
    have more especially for you."

    Remember, Paul considered the Corinthians his "children", entrusted to him by God, and therefore himself RESPONSIBLE for such ones. When one transgressed, then, he felt personally responsible, as well as defeated in his ministry. But, he was corrected and learned that this was not the case:

    "Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has
    saddened NOT me, but all of you to an extent -
    not to be too harsh in what I say."

    Sigh! Paul was, after all... just a man. Couldn't take ALL of the responsibility, so he now says that this matter came up because of the conduct of ANOTHER and Paul considered that one to have truly caused the sadness. But, he WAS learning not to condemn, as shown by his attempt not to be too harsh... THIS time... and we can accommodate the "weakness" of HIS flesh in not taking FULL responsibility. I mean, who does?

    And so, he concedes and acquiesces:

    "This rebuke is sufficient for such a man, so that NOW...
    (as opposed to what Paul wrote BEFORE!)

    that SOMEHOW..."
    (including Paul's erroneous and
    unloving admonishment to expel such one! Ah, pride...
    such a destructive emotion...)"

    "such a man should not be SWALLOWED UP BY HIS BEING
    (Paul acknowledges, then, that
    the man COULD have been 'swallowed up'... and lost to them
    forever... due to now being in a weakened state just because
    of the grief put upon him by their LACK OF LOVE. Even today,
    many who are "expelled" considered themselves cast out by
    God, condemned by man AND God, and thus unworthy of life.
    Their reaction, then, to serving God? "What's the use!?"
    But... ALL have sinned and ALL have fallen short, dear ones...)

    Anyway, Paul goes on to say:

    "Therefore I EXHORT YOU... to CONFIRM YOUR LOVE for him."

    Well, okay!! He then goes on to make a statement that he trying to see if they were going to be obedient to THAT end as well:

    "For to this end ALSO, I write to ascertain the PROOF OF YOU,
    whether you are obedient in ALL things."

    (Sigh! Again, Paul was being just a man, by saying "I only did what I did and am doing what I do now to see if YOU are obedient." Taking responsibility for one's errors is one of, if not THE hardest thing to do! Like Peter, who showed himself to be hypocritical, Paul, too, had some 'imperfections'... in his HEART! He had "judged"... which he was never granted to do!)

    Anyway, the PROOF that Paul was speaking of now was that in fulfillment of my Lord's words as recorded at Matthew 5:43-45, which commands those who belong to my Lord to "love your enemies," stating that DOING SO will PROVE us to be "sons of [our] Father who is in the heavens."

    Paul then ends his admonition with the words that:

    "ANYTHING... YOU... kindly forgive... ANYONE... I DO, TOO!"

    and concludes with words to the effect that whatever he has forgiven he has done so for their sakes in the sight of Christ so that the Adversary would not conquer them. What Paul meant was that HE had now "got it" and was following the "law" of the Christ, which says that "whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven," as well as "Stop judging and you will by NO means BE judged." Paul, then, KNEW that if HE did NOT forgive such ones, by his anointing with holy spirit he was CONDEMNING such ones... AS WELL AS... condemning himself. Paul... got it.

    Now, to move on to the TRUE "spirit" of my Lord's words at Matthew 18:15-18:

    Whether we who belong to God and Christ want to ADMIT it or not, we ARE "our brothers' keeper." We ARE responsible for one another; however, we are such to the extent and ONLY to the extent that we are 'SENT' by God, through Christ... LITERALLY... to warn our brothers! And when I say literally, I do mean literally.

    Ezekiel 3:20, 21

    We are NOT, however, responsible to the point where we need to mind one another's business. On several occasions, the disciples asked my Lord with regard to his opinion or intentions of someone else, and each time... he corrected them.

    Unfortunately, it is our "nature" to be concerned more with the conduct and practices of the NEXT man... than we are with ourselves. Remember Cain? He got angry because he didn't "measure" up. Had he worried about himself and HIS sacrifice, however, and not that of Abel's, he might not have murdered his own brother. But overcoming that "nature" is one of the BIGGEST lessons my Lord taught when he walked on the earth in flesh. And it was this "nature" that the Law Covenant sought to EXPOSE... and CORRECT!

    The Law was written NOT so that Israel could condemn one another, but so that Israel would KNOW SIN... for THEMSELVES INDIVIDUALLY... and FORGIVE those 'who trespass against us'. Thus, my Lord himself, the Son and Christ of God, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH... FULFILLED the Law in that while he never transgressed it HIMSELF... he forgave ALL those who 'transgressed against' it, thus transgressing against HIM, and thus transgressing against God. He LOVED, so that he judged no one... and forgave all. That, dear ones, IS the Law's fulfillment: love.

    Anyway, the "spirit" of my Lord's words STILL command that we love such one, even if we have been sent to warn them and they don't listen. True, their "blood" will be on them for such failure, BUT... once we have done "just so" it is NO LONGER OUR CONCERN. Who are we to say whether they have a "ransom" or not? For my Father, the Holy One of Israel, JAH OF ARMIES, shows mercy to whomever HE wishes to show it. All WE "owe" such ones... is love. Nothing more, certainly nothing less... and... WITHOUT hypocrisy.

    By the spirit of my Father, JAH OF ARMIES, as granted me by my Lord, His Son, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, by means of holy spirit, I, myself, SJ, have spoken these things to you.

    Again, may you have peace!

    A servant to the Household of God, Israel, and a slave of Christ,


  • somebody
    Not in all cases. If someone is df'ed for smoking,drunkeness,etc. the purpose to df is not to keep someone from talking. In these cases it is to clean out the chaff according to the society.

    First of all, it's supposedly not known to the congregation what one is handed over to the devil for. that OPENS room for gossip galore.

    second of all, one can be disfellowshipped for talking to one the elders KNOW who has been df'd for smoking.

    The elders will tell the one speaking to the one tossed into satan's hands by the "loving" elders that thwey are disfellowshipped for sharing in the sin of smoking. The df'd person can be a non-smoker but still be handed over to satan even if they are NOT a smoker!!! I know this is a FACT. I've been there. And I posed NO THREAT WHATSOEVER in "dirtying" the congregation!

    My only sin against the wbts was that I refused to paticipate in symbolicaly handing another human over to the devil.

    And I'm sure that many, many, many people worshippiong the wbts left for the same reasons and are as like i am. not df'd or da'd. Just simply did not want to practice this hatful practice that the wbts dictated to be loving, am one of "Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith."

    And as far as the WBTS being liars, well they are the living, walking, writing, and printing defintion of LIARS. This is from the article zev quoted:

    Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.
    I, as many others know that. It is a FACT for us who have lived through it. Why do you think the elders, per the publishing FACTORY Inc.'s orders are forced to push for a da letter in writing from those who choose to just cease to exist in their faith in an incorprated printing factory? Why do think they now call themselves a "legal instrument"?

    I personally think that by their fruitcakes, you will know them.

  • sunscapes

    Gumby, Ozzy & E-man: I analyzed what you said in your first posts. Gumby said,

    "Stop associating with him. Yet do not consider him an enemy, but admonish him as a brother";

    Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother who is a .......

    In both of these scriptures the SAME greek word is used for 'stop associating with'. However, the society applies different meanings in these two cases and even changes the wording in NWT.

    Both scriptures show you wouldn't RUN with someone of that caliber.
    However if one scripture shows to admonish him as a brother, then the same application applies in the other scripture.

    1st. corinthians 5:11 was a case of bragging by the sinner AND the congregation of the sin. This was a unique situation that would rarely occur

    So I went to the NWT for wording on these, and compared them thru the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear.

    2 Thess. 3:14 reads, "If but anyone not is obeying to the word of us through the letter, this (one) be you putting sign on, NOT TO MIX UP SELVES WITH him, in order that he might be turned in; and not as enemy be you considering, but be you putting mind in as a brother."

    1 Cor. 5:11 reads, "Now but I wrote to you NOT TO BE MIXING UP SELVES WITH if ever anyone brother being named may be fornicator or covetous (one) or idolater or reviler or drunkard or snatcher, to the such (one) not-but to be eating with."

    Yup, your right, the identical Greek is used here in the two scriptures. In order for consistency, the "putting mind in as a brother" would have to be applied to both, yet the NWT has contrarily translated the two, even though the Greek word with the Greek characters are identical in both scriptures.

    As Englishman mentioned, anyone handled this way would have no lower status as "a man of the nations" that is, not any different than one who they would meet on the street or call on in the field! Thus the shunning policy is proven unscriptural.

    You think you have worries? You should know what the US military knows.

  • somebody


    Wonderful information you give! In my opinion, you always have. You do it in your own way.... but I for one, (and maybe I'm the only one here on the board who does)
    certainly am one in tune with most of your opinions. I agreed with one of your posts imparticular on H20 a few years back and you actually got accused of faking two different people and replying to your own post back then.

    It's a mad mad mad world.

    either way, I feel greatful to see you back posting here again, and love your input.

    love and peace to you,

  • AGuest

    Dearest Somebody... may you have peace...

    and... THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU... for clearing that up! You don't what all I have been accused of along that 'vein' (being more than one person and responding to myself - sheesh!) or perhaps you do. Anyway and again, thank you and MUCH peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


Share this