Is there a better way than disfellowshipping?

barry

And can the WT learn from other churches?
The general Conference of Adventists held in Toronto Canada
No Adventist will ever be Disfellowshiped Again.
Voted to change the term "Disfellowshiped" to 'Remeoved from membership". The church manual committeeintended to make the term "less loaded with negative implications," Said Lowell Cooper, General Conference Vice President. The subheading was changed from " Queries concerning receiving and dropping members" to Queries concerning receiving and removeing members."
Members are received by majority vote of church members and are likewise dropped by majority vote. So if I want to get out dissagreeing with doctrine is not good enough Ill have to do sumthin really bad now.
Barry

blondie

Hey Barry.

Actually, I always considered disfellowshipping better than the practice of putting people to death for adultery, fornication, etc., that the Israelites practiced and some Islamic groups do.

But back on your topic, I have a question, After removing them from membership how are they treated by that group? If it takes more than disagreeing with doctrine, is that viewed as the same if the person actively recruited others to their point of view to have them leave the membership too?

I just wondered because JWs don't just treat disfellowshipped and disassociated JWs as nonmembers or like people who never were JWs. They treat them as if they were dead, nonexistent.

But your information is interesting. Do you have an URL we can go to?

Gopher

Disfellowshipping is unlike anything that occurred in the first century Christian group.It is akin to taking someone outside the city gates and casting stones.

Except it's worse. The DF'd person has to keep living under the shadow of judgment and harsh shunning, and the family/congregation members who are affected have to carry out the psychologically unnatural course of treating a live person as if he/she were dead.

The better way would be to let each individual's conscience decide whether they would "mark" this individual as unworthy of spiritual fellowship. If a Christian congregation is doing a good enough job teaching and providing information to inform their member's consciences, than each one would be able to act appropriately towards the alleged wrongdoer.

pateaton

Thanks Barry for that useful bit of information. As you know, in the borg, not seeing eye to eye with the GB on doctrinal matters is a 'Cardinal' sin' and out you go!

I was wondering what scripture has to say about it. The only two I can find is in Matt 18:15-17 :-

"Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not listen, then have it out before two or three witnesses. If he will not listen to them, then bring the matter before the whole congregation. If he will not even listen to the congregation, then let him be to you as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

In other words, he should be disfellowshiped. But it's still a bit up in the air just what kind of sin Jesus was talking about. The other transgression which Paul deals with has more to do with our love for the Lord:-1 Cor 16.22.

"If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed."

-Pat.

dedalus

Is there a better way than disfellowshipping?

Yes, as a matter of fact, there is. It's called minding your own business. Don't like someone? Don't hang out with that person. But don't go institutionalizing your social preferences.

What does the Bible say on this matter? It says whatever the hell you want it to say, depending on which scriptures you're citing and how you're interpreting them. There's a scripturally viable answer to every position on every subject, another reason why it's a mostly useless book to live by.

Dedalus

Edited for typo--thanks Farkel!

Edited by - dedalus on 26 July 2002 0:37:22

Farkel

dedalus,

. But do(n't) go institutionalizing your social preferences.

Excellent point!

Also, don't go institutionalizing your sexual hangups, personal prejudices, pet Bible theories, fantasies, dreams, hopes, wishes, fears or any other anal hang-up you possess.

Are you listening, GB?

Farkel

Edited by - Farkel on 25 July 2002 8:45:14

gumby

Gopher:

"The better way would be to let each individual's conscience decide whether they would "mark" this individual as unworthy of spiritual fellowship. If a Christian congregation is doing a good enough job teaching and providing information to inform their member's consciences, than each one would be able to act appropriately towards the alleged wrongdoer."

If the congregation provides info. "to inform it's members consciences" do you think anything would really change? Out of embarrasement from being seen hob-nobbing around with this "marked one" by other publishers.....nothing would change.....maybe a little.

To inform one conscience or influence someones conscience.....is taking away the others conscience......to a degree anyway.

I've always thought they could at least treat the wayward dubs as they would...."worldly people".

That would help somewhat.

zenpunk

Disfellowshipping and shunning - for those of us who are victims - is a horrid experience. How can a group that preaches love from a God that is supposedly love have a teaching that anyone who disagrees with them is not worthy of existance. In other words, they don't take you outside to stone you, but they'll destroy your self-worth instead.

gumby

they don't take you outside to stone you,

And why don't they? They STILL live by the old law in many things. What changed from stoning someone to shunning them? Why the change? Did jesus change it? Why?

morrisamb

When I was diassociated, an Elder told my mother, "I didn't think he'd turn out to be like his father." My father had been disfellowshipped for sexually abusing us.

This is an extreme example, but it shows one of the problems. Everyone's lopped in the same barrel. Criminals with smokers. Murderers with fornicators. This is ridiculous.

My siblings and I all are disf or diss. We don't acknowledge it or accept it. We got baptised in the height of our confusion. Mere mortals are judging our worthiness.

It took a long time for us to figure out our individuality, but when we did, we realized buying into labels can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I am unworthy of living." "I will die at Armaggedon" For a time, I felt like the walking dead. As I grew stronger and stronger, I'd joke, "Hey, I'm happy 'toast'!"

It's been 18 years since I walked away peacefully, 8 years since I was disassociated. People treated me as though I was disfellowshipped the first 10 years. No disassociating will NEVER get me to go back. It doesn't make me think, 'Oh bad Donald 'cause this group of people don't say hi. I must go back to be happy.' I was unhappy, that's why I left in the first place.

Edited by - morrisamb on 25 July 2002 9:19:7

Is there a better way than disfellowshipping?

Share this