Why WTBTS Disfellowshipping Works...

by AGuest 61 Replies latest jw friends

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    In every Christian church I have ever attended, God or Christ is referred to as Our Lord. This is why some churches call each brother and sister.

    I can't agree that disfellowship is effective. Is emotional pain the definition of effective? When I explain why the Witnesses are a cult but I don't mean cult in its perjorative sense, I stress the high control and obedience issues. Most do not know about disfellowshipping. Peoples eyebrows are raised when I mention it. They are taking note.

    I don't think disfellowshiping helps the Witnesses one iota. They are blocked from creative and thoughtful input. Are the Amish effective when they shun? It would be preferable to have a religion based on faith and what one felt in a heart. Foolship sheeps are not good recruits. The policy makes all members no more than widgets produced in a factory. Also, it is so rarely used if at all in other churches that members of those churches feel part of a body. In my own faith, I find that the tension between clergy and laity serves many good purposes. It is the lie of Genesis and Revelation that lack of tension is bliss.

    How do they reconcile breaking up families and close friends with Jesus' clear example in the gopsels? I am excluding the time when Jesus said he came to break up families.

    Everyone has special gifts to offer in any church. Disfellowship rejects these gifts. Between losing these gifts and the deep pain disfellowshiping causes, I fail to see effectiveness. It may be effective in the short term. The longer term view is the better one IMO. Something hurtful and arbitrary need not be effective.

  • daringhart13


    Hey AGuest......have you ever served as a chairman of a judicial committee? Were you an elder at all?

  • jam

    Band I agree. I was raised in the Baptist church, and went

    back after leaving the cult. I can,t recall anyone disfellowshipped

    in all the years I attened. Not a lot of monkey business that you

    are led to believe, by keeping the organization clean. I have read stories

    here that makes the borg look as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah and

    worst then the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Yes the disfellowshippng

    has worked just great.


    In the first century a person may have chosen to not greet, or not invite into their homes, an individual who did not believe the good news about Christ. If your brother, or Uncle or Father chose to obey the Pharisees or were living a life of unrepentant sin, then you did not have to invite them in your home when you were with fellow Christians. That is what DF'ing was in the Apostles day. It wasn't kicking people out for arbitrary reasons or because they showed that you were teaching lies. That was the Pharisees way of operating. DF'ing today is a tool used by the GB to goad the sheep into submission so that they can remain in charge and unchallenged.

    It works.

  • AGuest
    Hey AGuest......have you ever served as a chairman of a judicial committee? Were you an elder at all?

    No, dear DH13 (peace to you!); I don't think they let women serve in such capacities (and every woman among them should be grateful for THAT! Attending more than 14 JC meetings over several years (the 14 during my last 2 years), though, kind of gives me clue as to what takes place. Why do you ask?

    Just to clarify, the point here is not that they USE disfellowshipping (of course they do - my Lord himself is recorded to have said that his sheep would be "expel[led] from their synagogues" - which is what a KH is: a "public" place where folks (men) can go to "publicly discuss" (talk) about the Law - hence, the "public talk." Yes, see that? Pay attention, dear ones! Because being asleep will allow very revealing facts to slip by and over your head...).

    The point is why DF'ing WORKS. It wouldn't... if folks were awake... and aware... and didn't just take other folks' word as to the conduct/sins being alleged against someone (well, not even alleged... because allegations are subject to being disproved. The accusations these bring are not). As it doesn't for those who are awake. Which, thankfully, was the case with the Corinthian congregation: Paul could assert what that part of the Body "should" do all he wanted as to an alleged sinner among them... but some just weren't buying it, praise JAH. Nor should we. Just because an accusation is made... doesn't mean it's true. OR than someone should be judged harshly as a result.

    It COULD be true... but it also may not be... and hearing only one side doesn't give one enough information to know. Unfortunately, all manner of things bring about false accusations... particularly those that "bear false witness" against a brother/fellowman (Exodus 20:16)... including jealousy. Which is rottenness... to the BONE... and thus, all the way down to the SPIRIT (Proverbs 14:30).

    That would be a big mistake. It gives the culprit time to cover their tracks, dispose of evidence and perhaps threaten their victim.

    That's what a witness is FOR, C. In case a culprit tries to cover their tracks, dispose of evidence, even threaten their victims. The witness themself would have to have some evidence of the wrong themselves, yes, including perhaps having seen it with their own eyes... and if not, something that corroborates they're feeling about it? I was not thinking of a situation where someone just came and told me of it... unless it was a child or someone I trusted. Even so, I would have to look into it, would I not to be sure? Imagine if someone, even a child, just told me YOU were a molester... and I ran off with that information. Your life could be absolutely ruined if it were not true. So I would have gotten enough FROM that child... or someone else... to KNOW it was true... before even approaching you with it.

    Does that mean I don't believe the child? Of course, not. But I wouldn't simply run to authorities without making SURE that that child was SURE as to what took place. Because the police may not believe them, either... without some kind of facts, etc., that show there's a possibility it could BE true. For example, if the child told me you had touched them at a place and time I KNOW you could not have (you were out of town)... then I would have to ask a few more questions to get that place/time down. I personally wouldn't run to the authorities unless I was told a little more than "I think Uncle Cofty 'touched' me." I would need to know just a little more than that before I throw your hiney to the wolves. Note, though, once I got what I needed, I would have NO problem tossing your butt right to them.

    And I would have NO problem letting you know I was going to... if you didn't do it yourself. Of course, I most probably would have told someone else that if "something happened" to me... to look to you. Maybe write a letter and leave it somewhere where it could found if something DID happen to me (and let you know I had done so, so don't even think of trying something snakey with ME).

    Now, how do I know I would tell you to tell and do so if you didn't? Been there and done that, too, luv. Not re molestation but several other crimes/sins. Especially as a JW. I mean, hey, don't wanna have to tell your dirt - YOU tell your dirt. Don't put that mess on me.

    A doulos of Christ,


  • Ding

    No matter what you may say on "the other side," JWs are trained to believe that the organization is always right.

  • steve2

    You make some compelling points - but your posts are very long-winded.

    Brevity's best!

    It's enough to know that shunning works - it is one of the most powerful ways to register disapproval in closely knit groups.

    It has been used from time immemorial in one form or another.

    It wasn't invented by the Watchtower Society, they are by no means the most severe exponents of the practice and nor will they be the last group to ever use it.

  • Eustace

    It's enough to know that shunning works

    Works at what? Keeping people in?

    JWs have the biggest churn of any American religion:

    An even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny Jehovah's Witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds. That means that two-thirds of the people who told Pew they were raised Jehovah's Witnesses no longer are — yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts. Notes Lugo, "No wonder they have to keep on knocking on doors."


  • AGuest

    You make some compelling points - but your posts are very long-winded.

    Brevity's best!

    Well, you know what they say, dear steve (peace to you!): "one's girl's treasure"...

    Just consider me more of an... mmmm... "Isaiah/Jeremiah/Ezekiel/Daniel" type servant... than say an... mmmm... "Obadiah/Nahum/Habbakuk" type servant: some of us have a lot to say; others, not so much. That might help you through it.


    A doulos of Christ,


  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I was born-in so I may not realize what it is like for those who converted. It was very clear to me, and I overheard relatives, that the WTBTS was arbitrary. Personalities ruled the place.

    Imagine what the Witnesses could accomplish if they did resort to disfellowshiping. The JW rules were crystal clear to me even as a child. Whatever someone in power over you says, you must obey. You do NOT reason. No scriptural discussion need take place. I knew these rules as early as five or six.

    I also knew that knowing the right person at Bethel could make a big difference.

    If people converted, they voluntarily chose to be expelled and shunned with no due process. The Witnesses never lied about this matter.

    Why argue the Bible or facts with them? They do not care.

    I've seen good people cry their hearts out. When your time is up, your time is up. They don't pretend there is due process or appeals. If you did not want to be disfellowshipped, people should not become JWs. Born-ins are a different story.

Share this