Inactive to be disfellowshipped!

by Pureheart 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Pureheart

  Hey Guys,

  *** w93 7/15 27 Tenderly Shepherding Jehovah's Precious Sheep ***
  Jesus gave an illustration about a man who had a hundred sheep but promptly searched for one that had strayed in order to bring it back to the flock. (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7) In like manner an overseer should have concern for each member of the congregation. Inactivity in the ministry or in attending Christian meetings does not mean that the sheep is no longer part of the flock. He remains part of “all the flock” for whom the elders must “render an account” to Jehovah.
  One body of elders became quite concerned that some that had been associated with the congregation had drifted into inactivity. A list of these individuals was prepared, and special effort was made to visit them and assist them to return to Jehovah’s sheepfold. How thankful to God these elders were that over a period of two and a half years, they were able to help more than 30 persons to become active in Jehovah’s service once again. One of those thus helped had been inactive for some 17 years!
  Even when a member of the flock becomes involved in serious wrongdoing, the elders’ responsibility does not change. They continue to be concerned shepherds, tenderly and mildly endeavoring to save the wrongdoer if at all possible. (Galatians 6:1, 2) Regrettably, in certain instances it becomes evident that a member of the congregation lacks godly sorrow for serious sins that he has committed. Loving shepherds then have a Scriptural responsibility to protect the rest of the flock against this contaminating influence.—1 Corinthians 5:3-7, 11-13.

  Two elders will locate an inactive one, and notice that it is two “elders”, not an elder and a ministerial servant, but two elders will visit the inactive one. If the person is guilty of breaking any of the WT laws and they do not repent, they will be disfellowshipped. In that way these inactive ones will not be considered JWs any longer and the elders will not be responsible for them. And the name of the congregation will be above reproach, so that people in the community will not blame the congregation for any misconduct on the part of the inactive ones.

  If you are inactive and are breaking any of the WT laws, you better watch your back!

  Pureheart
• 

  Yerusalyim

  WOW, We must be REALLY pissing them off.

  YERUSALYIM
  "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
  [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
• 

  Elsewhere

  Loving shepherds then have a Scriptural responsibility to protect the rest of the flock against this contaminating influence.

  Let me see if I've got this right... if someone is inactive and is not interacting with the congregation, this person may need to be DFed in order to protect the congregation from contamination? [8>]

  "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
  Believe in yourself, not mythology.
  <x ><
• 

  gsx1138

  Just one more way to exerpt control over your followers. They want to remove as much possibility of anyone with common sense infesting their den of self...errr rightousness. That would also explain why my mother is a militant JW again after being inactive for almost 2 years.

  Dear Lord, please save me from your followers.
• 

  NameWithheld

  Loving shepherds then have a Scriptural responsibility to protect the rest of the flock against this contaminating influence.

  Let me see if I've got this right... if someone is inactive and is not interacting with the congregation, this person may need to be DFed in order to protect the congregation from contamination? [8>]

  You said it Elsewhere - that's EXACTLY what I thought. How stupid!
• 

  Gozz

  Pureheart,

  In which case the title of your thread is misleading. This 1993 article is stating that any inactive person engaging in wrongdoing could be disfellowshipped. Elders will not have any other choice than to disfellowship if the inactive one does not show remorse in some way. There is nothing new. The article states that an inactive one is still regarded as one of the flock. This is standard policy. It will be surprising if most of the active ones claim they don't know this.

  Elsewhere,

  An inactive one, although not interacting with the congregation, can still be interacting with members of the congregation. Getting that one 'marked' is even not a definite statement that there should be no interaction with him. The elders can do that, give a talk about the erring course, and then word might get passed around about the person 'walking in a disorderly manner'. But 'protection' of the congregation will not be complete until that person is disfellowshipped. Wacky, but there is some consistency there, the Wacthtower way.
• 

  Fire Dragon

  They just want to keep the neighborhood from thinking that JWs have a new standard. It is indeed a control issue. It is also a very subtle way to make those in the territory think what the WTS wants them to think...that is, that JWs ARE different from them, therefore keeping them from listening to anyone ever associated with the dubs - like us. But in reality, if the dubs were so different then why do over 300,000 get DFd every year? Duh!

  "...if there is a hell, I'll see you there." (NIN - Downward Spiral)
  I'll be the one providing the fire.
• 

  Francois

  UADNA Members: Take note of this one for Florida meeting.

  Francois
• 

  AlanF

  These days the Society appears to be gradually moving away from the practice of DF'ing "inactive" people who violate JW standards. My suspicion is that this is because they've painted themselves into a legal corner. I suspect that this is the only reason I have not been DF'd, because the Society knows very well that if they do, I'll haul their asses into court and literally make a federal case of it.

  Years ago, it was the Society itself that DF'd people, only using a local congregation to carry out the act. For example, a currently well known critical author, Edmund Gruss, became a JW in his early teens in the mid-1940s, then began to quit at age 17 and by age 21 joined an Evangelical religion. He went on to seminary school and became a professor of religion. Around 1970-72 he wrote several tracts and a couple of books critical of the Watchtower religion, including Apostles of Denial and The Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation. The former detailed Gruss's disagreement with JW doctrine and was essentially a dispute between two sets of competing religious ideas. The second gave a detailed history of the false predictions of the JWs. After some 21 years out of the religion, he was DF'd for publishing the critical material, even though he was not a member of the congregation that filled out the DF'ing papers.

  Today the WTS claims that a person is not DF'd by the Society itself, but by a local congregation. In fact, they strongly emphasize that for legal reasons (actually to protect itself from lawsuits) elders must not put anything in writing that even suggests that the Society had a hand in a DF'ing. They've created a conundrum with this policy, though, because if a person is not a member of some JW congregation, then there are no local elders who have "spiritual authority" over the person, and so no local elders can DF him or her within the Society's guidelines. So if a person moves to another area and does not have a publisher's record card transferred, he or she has effectively removed himself from the authority of the Society. The same goes for someone whose record card is thrown away, which is technically supposed to happen after five years. The Society certainly does not explain any of these things openly, because to do so would open a huge can of worms for them. But in an ethical sense this is the right thing, because no one in his right mind would expect that someone who quietly quits a religion should be expected to live by its precepts the rest of his life, on pain of formal excommunication which could involve forced shunning by family and friends who remain in the religion.

  AlanF
• 

  NeonMadman

  if a person is not a member of some JW congregation, then there are no local elders who have "spiritual authority" over the person, and so no local elders can DF him or her within the Society's guidelines. So if a person moves to another area and does not have a publisher's record card transferred, he or she has effectively removed himself from the authority of the Society.

  But if one moves and doesn't have his publisher's record card transferred, doesn't that mean that he is still technically a member of the congregation he moved away from, and that that congregation could still theoretically take action against him? I understand that the logistics might be such that the body of elders in the old congregation might not bother, but if somebody particularly ticked off the Society, it seems to me that they would still have the option of taking action against him through whatever congregation he was last associated with.

  The same goes for someone whose record card is thrown away, which is technically supposed to happen after five years.

  Does the literature somewhere specify this five-year limit? I had always understood that the cards were held as long as the person lived, unless he was disfellowshipped.

  Tom

  "At midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew go out and round up everyone who knows more than they do"
  --Bob Dylan