Disfellowshipping Changes

by UnDisfellowshipped 23 Replies latest jw friends

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    Below is a list of Quotes from the Watchtower Society about their DISFELLOWSHIPPING PRACTICES, and you will see how they have changed over the years!

    Quote from The Watchtower Reprints (1893), Page 1572:

    The endeavor to compel all men to think alike on all subjects, culminated in the great apostasy and the development of the great Papal system; and thereby the "gospel," the "one faith," which Paul and the other apostles set forth, was lost buried under the mass of uninspired decrees of popes and councils. The union of the early church, based upon the simple gospel and bound only by love, gave place to the bondage of the church of Rome a slavery of God's children, from the degradation of which multitudes are still weak and suffering.

    Quote from The Watchtower Reprints March 1st 1919, Page 6,397:

    "Even treating the brother for a time as a heathen man and a publican would not mean to do him injury, to castigate him, to pillory him, to expose him to shame or contempt before the world. In the meantime the brother may merely be treated in the kindly, courteous way in which it would be proper for us to treat any publican or Gentile."

    "... the brother may be treated in the kindly courteous way in which it would be proper for us to treat any publican or Gentile..."

    Quote from The Watchtower April 1st 1920 Issue, Pages 100-101:

    "We would NOT refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord's channel. If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience."

    Paraphrase of The Watchtower 1930, Pages 275-281:

    Those who disagree with the Watchtower Society are classed as "evil slaves" and the "man of perdition," to be destroyed.

    Quote from The Watchtower March 1st 1952 Issue, Page 141:

    "Those who are acquainted with the situation in the congregation should never say `Hello' or `Goodby' to him. He is not welcome in our midst, we avoid him."

    Quote from The Watchtower October 1st 1952 Issue, Page 599:

    (I'm not sure if this is an exact Quote or a Paraphrase)

    If someone used to be a Jehovah's Witness, "We must HATE (THE PERSON) in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme active aversion, to consider (THE PERSON) as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest."

    Quote from The Watchtower November 15th 1952 Issue:

    Questions from Readers

    In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? - P. C., Ontario, Canada.

    We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee."-Deut. 13:6-11, AS.

    Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws.

    The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God's law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.

    God's law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds.

    The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of

    God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.

    If children are of age and continue to associate with a disfellowshiped parent because of receiving material support from him or her, then they must consider how far their spiritual interests are being endangered by continuing under this unequal arrangement, and whether they can arrange to support themselves, living apart from the fallen-away parent. Their continuing to receive material support should not make them compromise so as to ignore the disfellowshiped state of the parent. If, because of acting according to the disfellowship order of the company of God's people, they become threatened with a withdrawal of the parental support, then they must be willing to take such consequences.

    Satan's influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God's organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.

    The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person - no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: "If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah's sanctified nation]." (Matt. 18:17, NW) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.

    The same rule would apply to those who are in the relation of parent and child or of child and parent. What natural obligation falls upon them according to man's law and God's law the faithful parent or the faithful child will comply with. But as for rendering more than that and having religious fellowship with such one in violation of the congregation's disfellowship order-no, none of that for the faithful one! If the faithful suffers in some material or other way for the faithful adherence to theocratic law, then he must accept this as suffering for righteousness' sake.

    The purpose of observing the disfellowship order is to make the disfellowshiped one realize the error of his way and to shame him, if possible, so that he may be recovered, and also to safeguard your own salvation to life in the new world in vindication of God. (2 Thess. 3:14, 15; Titus 2:8) Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation's disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.

    Quote from The Watchtower December 1st 1952 Issue, Page 735:

    "Is it proper for a Christian witness of Jehovah to have business relationships with one who has been disfellowshiped?.. Generally speaking, it would be desirable for us to have no contact with disfellowshiped persons, either in business or in social and spiritual ways."

    Paraphrase of The Watchtower 1955, Page 607:

    Associating with a disfellowshipped person is grounds for the disfellowshipping of a Baptized Jehovah's Witness.

    Quote from The Watchtower July 15th 1961 Issue, Page 420:

    (I'm not sure if this is an exact Quote or a Paraphrase)

    Jehovah's Witnesses are to HATE THE PEOPLE who do bad.

    "in order to hate what is bad a Christian must HATE THE PERSON"

    Quote from The Watchtower July 1st 1963 Issue, Page 411:

    [Disfellowshiping] serves as a powerful warning example to those in the congregation, since they will be able to see the disastrous consequences of ignoring Jehovah's laws. Paul said: "Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear." 1 Tim. 5:20.

    Page 413:

    [The members of the congregation] will not converse with such one or show him recognition in any way. If the disfellowshiped person attempts to talk to others in the congregation, they should walk away from him. In this way he will feel the full import of his sin. . . . the disfellowshiped person who wants to do what is right should inform any approaching him in innocence that he is disfellowshiped and they should not be conversing with him.

    Quote from The Watchtower July 15th 1963 Issue, Pages 443-444:

    "In the case of the disfellowshiped relative who does not live in the same home, contact with him is also kept to what is absolutely necessary. As with secular employment, this contact is limited and even curtailed completely if at all possible."

    "We should not see how close we can get to relatives who are disfellowshiped from Jehovah's organization, but we should 'quit mixing in company' with them."

    "What if a person cut off from God's congregation unexpectedly visits dedicated relatives? What should the Christian do then? If this is the first occurrence of such visit, the dedicated Christian can, if his conscience permits, carry on family courtesies on that particular occasion. However, if his conscience does not permit, he is under no obligation to do so. If courtesies are extended, though, the Christian should make it clear that this will not be made a regular practice. . . . The excommunicated relative should be made to realize that his visits are not now welcomed as they were previously when he was walking correctly with Jehovah."

    Page 446:

    "If the excommunicated husband insists on offering prayer at mealtimes, the dedicated members of the household would not say "Amen" to the prayer, nor would they join hands as some have the custom, as this would be participating spiritually. They could bow their heads and offer their own silent prayer to Jehovah."

    Quote from The Watchtower October 1st 1967 Issue, Page 596:

    Following Faithful Shepherds with Life in View


    18. This strengthening of theocratic structure has brought a closer supervision of the organization as to Scriptural requirements in conduct of those associated. Christian standards have always been recognized by the modern faithful and discreet slave and have always been held up before the congregation as requirements in Christian living. Even as early as 1904, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, in his book The New Creation, outlined a Scriptural procedure for dealing with violators, even to the point of withdrawing from them the congregations fellowship and any and all signs or manifestations of brotherhood. (See study VI, Order and Discipline in the New Creation, pages 273 to 347) But this extreme measure of excommunication or disfellowshiping was not widely practiced among the congregations and was not made a requirement on congregations until 1952. No longer could Christian conduct be viewed simply as a matter affecting only the individual or individuals involved. Paul wrote the Corinthian congregation in connection with a disfellowshiping case in the first-century congregation: Do you not know that a little leaven ferments the whole lump? (1 Cor. 5:1-6) No longer could those following the practices of the nations be allowed admittance to the congregation nor could those falling away to such practices be allowed to remain.

    Quote from The Watchtower June 1st 1970 Issue, Pages 351-352:

    "Again, the disfellowshiping does not dissolve the flesh-and-blood ties, but, in this situation, contact, if it were necessary at all, would be much more rare than between persons living in the same home. Yet, there might be some absolutely necessary family matters requiring communication, such as legalities over a will or property."

    Quote from Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972 Edition), Pages 172-173:

    (I'm not sure if this is an exact Quote or a Paraphrase)

    "In faithfulness to God, none in the congregation should greet such persons when meeting them in public nor should they welcome these into their homes."

    If a child of someone is disfellowshipped from the Kingdom Hall, the parent is to refuse to listen to the child's reason.

    Quote from The Watchtower August 1st 1974 Issue, Page 465:

    "There is, however, NOTHING to show that Jews with a BALANCED and SCRIPTURAL VIEWPOINT would refuse to greet a 'man of the nations' or a tax collector. Jesus' counsel about greetings, in connection with his exhortation to imitate God in his undeserved kindness toward 'wicked people and good,' would seem to RULE AGAINST SUCH A RIGID STAND."

    Page 467:

    "Maintaining a Balanced View Toward the Disfellowshiped One":

    "Congregation elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish Rabbinical writers fomented towards Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way."

    Page 468:

    "... not 'mixing in company' with a person, or treating such one as 'a man of the nations,' does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane."

    Page 470:

    "... How, then, can parents carry out the injunction to discipline their children in harmony with God's Word when one of their children is disfellowshiped? They can still use God's Word or other publications that discuss the Bible in training the son or daughter, but they use these in a corrective manner, not as though having a spiritual `good time' with such a one in the way they could with the other children. How this is handled is for the parents to decide. This does not call for unkindness, but they do not accord such disfellowshiped son or daughter the same approved spiritual relationship granted the others."

    Page 471:

    "Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see a grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is NOT THE CONCERN OF THE ELDERS. Such a one has a NATURAL RIGHT to visit his blood relatives and his offspring."

    Quote from The Watchtower February 15th 1976 Issue, Page 122:

    You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy

    13. During the years following World War II the moral corruption of the world began to reach frightful proportions. The possibility existed that Gods clean organization could become contaminated by such corruptive influences. But Jehovah was interested in his people, just as in times past, so through his channel of communication he lovingly brought forward information to counteract the filth that could tarnish or cause his people to become unholy. (Matt. 24:45-47) Particularly from 1946, personal moral cleanness became a matter of much greater concern to the Lords people. (2 Cor. 7:1) Starting in 1952, the more formal Scriptural arrangement of disfellowshiping wrongdoers was instituted. Those who committed gross sins such as adultery and fornication were expelled from the congregation, if they did not repent. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Gods organization would not tolerate persons who refused to keep unspotted, clean and pure in the sight of Jehovah.

    Quote from The Watchtower June 15th 1980 Issue, Page 8:

    (I'm not sure if this is an exact Quote or a Paraphrase)

    (The PEOPLE) are to be HATED "in the sense of avoiding them as we would poison or a poisonous snake."

    Quote from The Watchtower August 1st 1980 Issue, Page 19:

    "Thus, the one who doubts to the point of becoming an apostate sets himself up as a judge. He thinks he knows better than his fellow Christians, better also than the 'faithful and discreet slave,' through whom he has learned the best part, if not all that he knows about Jehovah God and his purposes."

    Quotes from The Watchtower September 15th 1981 Issue, Pages 24-25:

    Pages 23-24:

    Disfellowshiping - How to View It

    Persons who make themselves not of our sort by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovahs Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.


    Though Christians enjoy spiritual fellowship when they discuss or study the Bible with their brothers or interested persons, they would not want to have such fellowship with an expelled sinner (or one who has renounced the faith and beliefs of Jehovahs Witnesses, disassociating himself). The expelled person has been rejected, being self-condemned because of sinning, and those in the congregation both accept Gods judgment and uphold it. Disfellowshiping, however, implies more than ceasing to have spiritual fellowship.Titus 3:10, 11.

    Paul wrote: Quit mixing in company . . . , not even eating with such a man. (1 Cor. 5:11) A meal is a time of relaxation and socializing. Hence, the Bible here rules out social fellowship, too, such as joining an expelled person in a picnic or party, ball game, trip to the beach or theater, or sitting down to a meal with him. (The special problems involving a relative who has been disfellowshiped are considered in the following article.)

    Page 26:

    God had purposed that families should be united in true worship, so religious beliefs would not create any divisions. But incidents occurred in which religion became a family issue. One of these was when Korah, Dathan and Abiram rebelled. Jehovah confirmed that he was dealing through Moses and Aaron, not through these religious rebels. Then Moses told the people to get away from the rebels tents. What would the children and households of Korah, Dathan and Abiram do? Would they put loyalty to family ahead of loyalty to Jehovah and his congregation?Most of those closely related to the rebels put family before God. Jehovah executed these relatives along with the rebels. Num. 16:16-33.

    Page 29:

    The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at ones home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bibles inspired direction: Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man. 1 Cor. 5:11.

    "Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum."

    Page 30:

    Great care needs to be exercised that a persons situation as a disfellowshiped sinner is neither overlooked nor minimized. As the sons of Korah well demonstrated, our chief loyalty must be to Jehovah and his theocratic arrangement. We can be sure that when we uphold his standards and prefer association with his organized people, rather than with wrongdoers, we will have his protection and blessing. Ps. 84:10-12.

    Normally, relatives are often together at meals, picnics, family reunions or other social gatherings. But when someone has unrepentantly pursued sin and has had to be disfellowshiped, he may cause difficulties for his Christian relatives in regard to such gatherings. While they realize that they are still related to him, they do not want to ignore Pauls advice that faithful Christians should quit mixing in company with an expelled sinner.

    There is no point in looking for some rule as to family members being at gatherings where a
    disfellowshiped relative might be present. This would be something for those concerned to resolve, in keeping with Pauls counsel. (1 Cor. 5:11) And yet it should be appreciated that if a disfellowshiped person is going to be at a gathering to which nonrelative Witnesses are invited, that may well affect what others do. For example, a Christian couple might be getting married at a Kingdom Hall. If a disfellowshiped relative comes to the Kingdom Hall for the wedding, obviously he could not be in the bridal party there or give away the bride. What, though, if there is a wedding feast or reception? This can be a happy social occasion, as it was in Cana when Jesus attended. (John 2:1, 2) But will the disfellowshiped relative be allowed to come or even be invited? If he was going to attend, many Christians, relatives or not, might conclude that they should not be there, to eat and associate with him, in view of Pauls drections at 1 Corinthians 5:11.

    "Would upholding God's righteousness and his disfellowshiping arrangement mean that a Christian should not speak at all with an expelled person, not even saying 'Hello'? And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple 'Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?"

    Quotes from The Watchtower January 1st 1983 Issue, Page 30:

    "It is to illustrate that if someone is disfellowshiped, he must at the time have had a truly bad heart and/or been determined to pursue a God-dishonoring course. Peter said that the condition of such a person is worse than before he became a Christian; he is like 'a sow that was bathed but has gone back to rolling in the mire.' "

    "Of course, the grandparents have to determine if some necessary family matters require limited contact with the disfellowshipped children. And they might sometimes have the grandchildren visit them. How sad, though, that by their unchristian course the children interfere with the normal pleasure that such grandparents enjoyed!"

    "We just need to go out of our way to be warm, genuinely interested and, above all, spiritual."

    Page 31:

    "But human emotions and attachments can have a powerful effect, making it difficult for people to act in accord with the disfellowshiping decree if a relative is involved."

    "... the expelled mate has proved that he is not the sort of person that we want to be around... So maybe a visit can be made when the disfellowshiped one is known to be out of the house."

    Quotes from Crisis of Conscience (by Raymond Franz, Former Anointed Governing Body Member and Nephew of Fred Franz), Atlanta: Commentary Press (1983), Page 32:

    "I know many persons who clearly evidence [a] concern [for truth], yet who are labeled as 'apostates,' 'antichrists,' 'instruments of Satan.' In case after case after case, the sole basis for such condemnation is that they could not honestly agree with all the organization's teaching or policies."

    Page 33:

    "What must it mean to a mother, who has seen a baby daughter come forth from her own body, has nursed that baby, cared for it through illness, has trained the young girl through the formative years of life, living her problems with her, feeling her disappointments and sadnesses as if they were her own, shedding tears along with her tears - what must it mean to that mother to have her daughter, now an adult, suddenly reject her and do so simply because her mother sought to be true to her conscience and to God?"

    "What must it do to a father or mother to see a son or daughter marry and be told, for the same reason, that `it would be best if they did not appear at the wedding,' or know that a daughter has given birth to a child and be told that they should not come to see their grandchild?"

    "This is not imagination. Exactly those things are happening to many parents who have been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses."

    Quote from The Watchtower July 1st 1984 Issue, Page 31:

    "Or, as mentioned in John 6:66, occasionally a Witness on his own initiative will decide to leave the way of truth. He may even make known his decision after the committee begins to look into his wrongdoing.... Then it will no longer be necessary for the elders to continue their investigation."

    Quote from The Watchtower December 15th 1984 Issue, Page 19:

    "We have been forewarned that there will be apostates and people who just like to have their ears tickled. Counsel such as at 2 John 9-11, 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 Timothy 3:5 allows no room for associating with those who turn away from the truth. Nor do we purchase or read their writings."

    Page 31:

    "Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the "antichrist." (1 John 2:18, 19)"

    "A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description."

    Quotes from The Watchtower March 15th 1986 Issue, Page 12:

    "Now, what will you do if you are confronted with apostate teaching - subtle reasonings - claiming that what you believe as one of Jehovah's Witnesses is not the truth? For example, what will you do if you receive a letter or some literature, open it and see right away that it is from an apostate? Will curiosity cause you to read it, just to see what he has to say? You may even reason: "It won't affect me; I'm too strong in the truth. And, besides, if we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test." In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt."

    "Do you wisely destroy apostate material?"

    Page 14:

    "Why is reading apostate publications similar to reading pornographic literature?"

    Page 17:

    "Beware of those who try to put forward their own contrary opinions."

    Page 20:

    "Therefore, resolve in your heart that you will never even touch the poison that apostates want you to sip."

    Quotes from The Watchtower April 1st 1986 Issue, Pages 30-31:

    Questions From Readers

    Why have Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?

    Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. Even some clergymen disagree with basic teachings of their church, yet they remain in good standing. In nearly all the denominations of Christendom, there are modernists and fundamentalists who greatly disagree with one another as to the inspiration of the Scriptures.
    However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29) Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.

    But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism. Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to "watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: "Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed." Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.-Galatians 1:8, 9.

    Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (New International Version) At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be "earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons."

    Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one's independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose "some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man." Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity - oneness in teaching and activity - could be and would be possible.-Ephesians 4:11-13.

    Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah's Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?

    That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah's sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a "faithful and discreet slave" upon earth today 'entrusted with all of Jesus' earthly interests,' which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ's foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15-12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ's Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present "great crowd" of Jesus' "other sheep."-John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.

    Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus' sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

    Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God's Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed "antichrist." John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."-2 John 7, 10, 11.

    Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.) Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point, qualified ministers will lovingly assist him. This accords with the counsel: "Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire." (Jude 22, 23) Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic, but it does highly value and work toward the unity encouraged in God's Word.

    The Watchtower May 1st 1986 Issue:

    The Watchtower Society in this Issue adds over-eating (gluttony) to the list of Disfellowshipping Offenses.

    Quotes from The Watchtower April 15th 1988 Issue (This Article is on the Official Watchtower Society Website at http://www.watchtower.org ; Compare this Article to the Statement from their Media Website at the very bottom below about people who Stop Associating with the Jehovahs Witnesses):

    Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit

    "Cutting ourselves off completely from all association with [my disfellowshipped sister] Margaret tested our loyalty to Jehovah's arrangement. It gave our family opportunity to show that we really believe that Jehovah's way is best."Lynette.

    "No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness." HEBREWS 12:11.

    THINK back to your childhood days. Can you recall your parents disciplining you? Most of us can. The apostle Paul used that as an illustration when commenting on discipline from God, as we read at Hebrews 12:9-11.
    God's fatherly discipline, which can affect our spiritual lives, can take many forms. One is his arrangement to exclude from the Christian congregation a person who no longer wants to live by God's standards, or who refuses to do so. A person who is thus strongly chastised or disciplined may repent and turn around. In the process, the congregation of loyal ones are also disciplined in that they learn the importance of conforming to God's high standards. 1 Timothy 1:20.

    'But,' someone may ask, 'is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?' Such a view surfaced in a recent court case involving a woman who was raised by parents who were Jehovah's Witnesses. Her parents had been disfellowshipped.
    She was not, but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation. Accordingly, the congregation was simply informed that she was no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    She moved away, but years later she returned and found that local Witnesses would not converse with her.
    So she took the matter to court.

    What was the outcome, and how might this affect you? In order to understand the matter properly, let us see what the Bible says about the related subject of disfellowshipping.

    Why This Firm Stand?

    "Cutting ourselves off completely from all association with [my disfellowshipped sister] Margaret tested our loyalty to Jehovah's arrangement. It gave our family opportunity to show that we really believe that Jehovah's way is best."Lynette.
    Most true Christians loyally support God and his righteous laws. (1 Thessalonians 1:2-7; Hebrews 6:10) Occasionally, though, a person deviates from the path of truth. For example, despite help from Christian elders, he may unrepentantly violate God's laws.
    Or he may reject the faith by teaching false doctrine or by disassociating himself from the congregation.
    Then what should be done? Such things occurred even while the apostles were alive; hence, let us see what they wrote about this.

    When a man in Corinth was unrepentantly immoral, Paul told the congregation: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) The same was to occur with apostates, such as Hymenaeus: "As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning." (Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20)

    Such shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort."1 John 2:18, 19.

    Hopefully, such a one will repent so that he can be accepted back. (Acts 3:19) But meanwhile, may Christians have limited fellowship with him, or is strict avoidance necessary? If so, why?

    Cut Off Thoroughly?

    Christians do not hold themselves aloof from people. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are 'fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.' Paul wrote that we cannot avoid them completely, 'otherwise we would have to get out of the world.' He directed that it was to be different, though, with "a brother" who lived like that: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that [has returned to such ways], not even eating with such a man."1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17.

    In the apostle John's writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God ... If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khai'ro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works." (John here used khai'ro, which was a greeting like "good day" or "hello." (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9)

    He did not use aspa'zomai (as in verse 13), which means "to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome" and may have implied a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) So the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even "hello" to such ones.See The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, page 31.) 2 John 9-11.

    Why is such a firm stand appropriate even today? Well, reflect on the severe cutting off mandated in God's Law to Israel. In various serious matters, willful violators were executed. (Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 15:30, 31) When that happened, others, even relatives, could no longer speak with the dead lawbreaker. (Leviticus 19:1-4; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 17:1-7)

    Though loyal Israelites back then were normal humans with emotions like ours, they knew that God is just and loving and that his Law protected their moral and spiritual cleanness. So they could accept that his arrangement to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing.Job 34:10-12.

    We can be just as sure that God's arrangement that Christians refuse to fellowship with someone who has been expelled for unrepentant sin is a wise protection for us. "Clear away the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are free from ferment." (1 Corinthians 5:7)

    By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views. Hebrews 12:15, 16.

    What About Relatives?

    God certainly realizes that carrying out his righteous laws about cutting off wrongdoers often involves and affects relatives. As mentioned above, when an Israelite wrongdoer was executed, no more family association was possible.

    In fact, if a son was a drunkard and a glutton, his parents were to bring him before the judges, and if he was unrepentant, the parents were to share in the just executing of him, 'to clear away what is bad from the midst of Israel.' (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

    You can appreciate that this would not have been easy for them. Imagine, too, how the wrongdoer's brothers, sisters, or grandparents felt. Yet, their putting loyalty to their righteous God before family affection could be lifesaving for them.

    Recall the case of Korah, a leader in rebellion against God's leadership through Moses. In his perfect justice, Jehovah saw that Korah had to die. But all loyal ones were advised: "Turn aside, please, from before the tents of these wicked men and do not touch anything that belongs to them, that you may not be swept away in all their sin."

    Relatives who would not accept God's warning died with the rebels. But some of Korah's relatives wisely chose to be loyal to Jehovah, which saved their lives and led to future blessings. Numbers 16:16-33; 26:9-11; 2 Chronicles 20:19.

    Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. Respect for God's judgments and the congregation's action will move the wife and children to recognize that by his course, he altered the spiritual bond that existed between them. Yet, since his being disfellowshipped does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue.

    The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man." 1 Corinthians 5:11.

    Understandably, this may be difficult because of emotions and family ties, such as grandparents' love for their grandchildren. Yet, this is a test of loyalty to God, as stated by the sister quoted on page 26. Anyone who is feeling the sadness and pain that the disfellowshipped relative has thus caused may find comfort and be encouraged by the example set by some of Korah's relatives. Psalm 84:10-12. (For a discussion of a relative's being disfellowshipped, see The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 26-31)

    The Court Decision

    You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman who was upset because former acquaintances would not converse with her after she chose to reject the faith, disassociating herself from the congregation.

    Before the case went to trial, a federal district court summarily granted judgment against her. That judgment was based on the concept that courts do not get involved in church disciplinary matters. She then appealed.
    The unanimous judgment of the federal court of appeals (819 F.2d 875 [9th Cir. 1987].) was based on broader grounds of First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) rights: "Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah's Witness, we find that the 'free exercise' provision of the United States Constitution . . . precludes [her] from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning. Accordingly, we affirm" the earlier judgment of the district court.

    The court opinion continued: "Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs . . . Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church. Churches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members. We agree with [former U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Jackson's view that '[r]eligious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be freeas nearly absolutely free as anything can be.' . . . The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice."

    The court of appeals acknowledged that even if the woman felt distress because former acquaintances chose not to converse with her, "permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses free exercise of religion . . . The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by [her] as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy." This decision has, in a sense, received even more weight since it was handed down. How so? The woman later petitioned the highest court in the land to hear the case and possibly overturn the decision against her. But in November 1987, the United States Supreme Court refused to do so.

    Hence, this important case determined that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person cannot recover damages from Jehovah's Witnesses in a court of law for being shunned. (Though various individuals have brought suit, no court has rendered a judgment against Jehovah's Witnesses over their Bible-based practice of shunning) Since the congregation was responding to the perfect directions that all of us can read in God's Word and applying it, the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions.
    DisciplineMany Benefit

    Some outsiders, upon hearing about disfellowshipping, are inclined to sympathize with a wrongdoer who can no longer converse with members of the Christian congregation. But is not such sympathy misplaced?
    Consider the potential benefit that the wrongdoer and others may receive.

    For example, on page 26 we noted Lynette's comment about her choice 'to cut herself off completely from all association' with her disfellowshipped sister Margaret. She and her Christian relatives 'believed that Jehovah's way is best.' And it is!

    Lynette's sister later told her: 'If you had viewed the disfellowshipping lightly, I know that I would not have taken steps toward reinstatement as soon as I did. Being totally cut off from loved ones and from close contact with the congregation created a strong desire to repent. I realized just how wrong my course was and how serious it was to turn my back on Jehovah.'

    In another case, Laurie's parents were disfellowshipped. Yet she says: 'My association with them never stopped but increased. As time went on, I became more and more inactive. I got to the point of not even attending meetings.' Then she read material in The Watchtower of September 1 and 15, 1981, that stressed the counsel of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 John 9-11. "It was as if a light bulb were turned on in me," she writes. 'I knew I would have to make some changes. I now better understand the meaning of Matthew 10:34-36.
    My decision was not an easy one for my family to swallow, for my son, five, is the only boy, and they love him dearly.' It is hoped that losing such association will touch the parents' hearts, as it did Margaret's. Still, the discipline involved helped Laurie: 'I am back out in the field ministry. My marriage and family are stronger because of my change, and so am I.'

    Or consider the feelings of one who was disfellowshipped and later reinstated. Sandi wrote: 'I would like to thank you for the very helpful and instructive articles [mentioned above] on reproof and disfellowshipping. I am happy that Jehovah loves his people enough to see that his organization is kept clean. What may seem harsh to outsiders is both necessary and really a loving thing to do. I am grateful that our heavenly Father is a loving and forgiving God.'

    So our God who requires that an unrepentant wrongdoer be expelled from the congregation also lovingly shows that a sinner can be reinstated in the congregation if he repents and turns around. (A disassociated person can similarly request to become part of the congregation again.) Thereafter he can be comforted by Christians who will confirm their love for him. (2 Corinthians 2:5-11; 7:8-13) Truly, it is just as Paul wrote: "No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."Hebrews 12:11.

    ExcommunicationWhat Effect?

    English historian Edward Gibbon wrote about the propriety and effect of disfellowshipping nearer the time of the apostles:
    "It is the undoubted right of every society to exclude from its communion and benefits such among its members as reject or violate those regulations which have been established by general consent. . . . The consequences of excommunication were of a temporal [earthly] as well as a spiritual nature. The Christian against whom it was pronounced was deprived of any part in the oblations of the faithful. The ties both of religious and of private friendship were dissolved."

    Quote from The Watchtower November 15th 1988 Issue, Page 19:

    "The Bible does not require that Witnesses avoid speaking with him, for he is not disfellowshiped. Previously unbaptized ones who unrepentantly sinned were completely avoided."

    Quotes from the "Preparing For Child Custody Cases" Booklet:

    Many try to portray the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses as dogmatic and restrictive. When answering questions about your religious beliefs and practices, emphasize the fact that you have formed your beliefs and adopted your practices after much study and reflection your religion is not simply a matter of rules which have been imposed by the elders. You want to emphasize the fact that you are a thinking, well-balanced, and reasonable individual who is competent to act as a parent. Avoid any response which gives the impression that you are unwilling or unable to provide for your child's best interests because of your religious beliefs.

    Quote from Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (The Secret Elders' Rule Book, 1991 Edition), Page 103:

    Proper View of Disfellowshipped and Disassociated Persons

    If an individual is trying to influence others to take an unscriptural course or is trying to deceive others, all should avoid him; he is described at 2 John 9-11.

    Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah.

    Basic Scriptural counsel on the proper view of those who have been expelled from the congregation is set out in the apostle Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 5:11- 13.

    John counsels against speaking to or associating with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person so as not to be "a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 11)

    Scriptural and historical guidelines on how to view disfellowshipped and disassociated persons are found in The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, pages 20-31.

    Quote from The Watchtower April 15th 1991 Issue:

    In recent times there have been cases in which an elder happened to meet a disfellowshipped person. Where appropriate, the shepherd briefly outlined the steps to be taken for reinstatement. Some persons like this repented and were reinstated. Such joyful outcomes indicate that there may be disfellowshipped or disassociated ones who would respond to a merciful approach made by the shepherds. But how might the elders handle this matter? Once a year at most, the body of elders should consider whether there are such persons living in their territory. The elders would focus on those who have been expelled for over a year. According to the circumstances, if it is appropriate, they would assign two elders (hopefully ones familiar with the situation) to visit such an individual. No visit would be made on any who evidence a critical, dangerous attitude or who have made it known that they want no help.-Romans 16:17, 18; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:16-18.

    Former friends and relatives might hope that a disfellowshipped one would return; yet out of respect for the command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, they do not associate with an expelled person. They leave it to the appointed shepherds to take the initiative to see if such a one is interested in returning.

    Quotes from The Watchtower July 15th 1995 Issue:

    Baptized servants of Jehovah who deliberately follow a wicked course and refuse to change must be viewed as unrepentant and thus unfit for Christian fellowship. (Compare 1 John 2:19.) Such individuals cannot be allowed to remain in the clean Christian congregation and thereby contaminate it.

    The propriety of expelling those who practice wicked deeds can be illustrated by the following situation: Because of the increase of assaults and violent crimes against students, some schools have adopted a policy that calls for lifetime suspensions for students who use or threaten to use weapons, reports The Globe and Mail, a newspaper in Toronto, Canada.

    Why is it loving to expel an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation? Doing so is an expression of love for Jehovah and his ways. (Psalm 97:10) This action shows love for those pursuing a righteous course because it removes from their midst one who could exercise a bad influence on them. It also protects the purity of the congregation.

    Quotes from The Watchtower March 1st 1998 Issue:

    11. We can demonstrate our appreciation for the "gifts in men" by being quick to heed their Bible-based counsel and decisions. The Bible advises us: "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." (Hebrews 13:17) Notice that we must not only "be obedient" but also "be submissive" to those taking the lead. The Greek word for "be submissive" literally means "be you yielding under." Commenting on the expressions "be obedient" and "be submissive," Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski says: "One obeys when one agrees with what he is told to do, is persuaded of its correctness and profitableness; one yields . . . when he has a contrary opinion." When we understand and agree with the direction of those taking the lead, obedience may come readily. But what if we do not understand the reason behind a particular decision?

    12. Here is where we may need to be submissive, or yielding. Why? For one thing, we need to trust that these spiritually qualified men have our best interests at heart. After all, they well know that they must render an account to Jehovah for the sheep committed to their care. (James 3:1) In addition, we do well to remember that we may not know all the confidential facts that led them to an informed decision.-Proverbs 18:13.

    13. What about being submissive when it comes to judicial decisions? Granted, this may not be easy, especially if a decision is made to disfellowship someone we love-a relative or a close friend. Here again, it is best to yield to the judgment of the "gifts in men." They are in a position to be more objective than we can be, and they may know more of the facts. These brothers often agonize over such decisions; it is a sobering responsibility to 'judge for Jehovah.' (2 Chronicles 19:6) They make every effort to be merciful, for they are mindful that God is "ready to forgive." (Psalm 86:5) But they must also keep the congregation clean, and the Bible directs that they disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) In many cases the wrongdoer himself accepts the decision. The discipline may be just what he needs to come to his senses. If we, his loved ones, are submissive when it comes to the decision, we may thereby be helping him to benefit from the discipline.-Hebrews 12:11.

    Quote from The Watchtower December 1st 1998 Issue, Page 17, Defending Our Faith:

    What About Slanderous Publicity?

    15 At times, Jehovah's Witnesses have been the target of distorted information in the media. For example, on August 1, 1997, a Russian newspaper published a slanderous article claiming, among other things, that Witnesses categorically require members to 'reject their wives, husbands, and parents if these do not understand and do not share their faith.' Anyone who is truly acquainted with Jehovah's Witnesses knows that the charge is false. The Bible indicates that Christians are to treat unbelieving family members with love and respect, and Witnesses endeavor to follow that direction. (1 Corinthians 7:12-16; 1 Peter 3:1-4) Even so, the article was printed, and many readers were thus misinformed. How can we defend our faith when we are falsely accused?

    Quote from the Official Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Society Media Relations Web Site, March 18th, 2002 (BEFORE DATELINE):

    [Taken from http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]

    Do you shun former members?

    THOSE WHO SIMPLY CEASE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE FAITH ARE NOT SHUNNED. In compliance with the Scriptures, however, members can be expelled for serious unchristian conduct, such as stealing, drunkenness, or adultery, if they do not repent and cease such actions. DISFELLOWSHIPPING DOES NOT SEVER FAMILY TIES. Disfellowshipped members may continue to attend religious services, and if they wish, they may receive pastoral visits. They are always welcome to return to the faith.1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

    Quote from the Official Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Society Media Relations Web Site, July 20th, 2002 (AFTER DATELINE):

    [Taken from http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]

    Do you shun former members?

    THOSE WHO SIMPLY LEAVE THE FAITH ARE NOT SHUNNED. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly directs: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:13) What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah's Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family changes, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "QUIT MIXING WITH THEM." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.


    Here is a Transcript of the Official Watchtower Society Disfellowshipping Video which is now on their Official Media Website at http://www.jw-media.org (I believe this was first posted on the Media Website in Late July 2002)

    "Worldly" Sociologist Rodney Stark's few comments are in CAPITAL LETTERS.

    My comments, explaining what is happening, are in [brackets]

    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'Disfellowshipping is a procedure which is laid down in the Bible, whereby a person who sins very seriously against God and against the Congregation and who refuses to repent, refuses to change, abandon the wrong way is informed that they're no longer a part of the Christian Congregation'.


    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'Disfellowshipping is a perocedure which benefits the Congregation. It serves as a protection to the Congregation....

    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'When Paul was dealing with the notorious case in Corinth, he said here [reading from his Bible], 'Do you not know that a little leven ferments the whole lump?' So, he said, 'Clear away the old leven'.

    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'So if wrong practices are allowed to remain in the Congregation, that could affect the spirituality of the whole Congregation.

    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) [reading from the Bible] 'Remove the evil man from among yourselves'. That is Disfellowshipping.'


    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'When a person is Disfellowshipped, those who are still there in the Congregation do avoid contact with them.

    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'The Apostle John, in his second letter said, 'Never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him....For he who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.'

    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'This was a young girl who was Disfellowshipped then got Reinstated...'What may seem harsh to outsiders is both necessary and really a loving thing to do.

    (Young Girl's Comment) "I am grateful that our heavenly Father is a loving and forgiving God."

    (The Watchtower Society Representative Speaking) 'Now, she wrote that after she was Reinstated but she did say, "Thank you".

    A Video creation of Robert Pevy, of the "Jehovah's Witness Writing Staff" and Rodney Stark, "Sociologist"

    Quotes from Our Kingdom Ministry August 2002 Issue:

    Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped

    1. The bond between family members can be very strong. This brings a test upon a Christian when a marriage mate, a child, a parent, or another close relative is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the congregation. (Matt. 10:37) How should loyal Christians treat such a relative? Does it make a difference if the person lives in your house hold? First, let us review what the Bible says on this subject, the principles of which apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who disassociate themselves.

    2. How to Treat Expelled Ones: God's Word commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man....Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) Jesus' words recorded at Matthew 18:17 also bear on the matter: "Let [the expelled ones] be to you as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." Jesus' hearers well knew that the Jews of that day had no fraternization with Gentiles and that they shunned tax collectors as outcasts. Jesus was thus instructing his followers not to associate with expelled ones. --See The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 18-20.

    3. This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God's Word states that we should 'not even eat with such a man.' (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, or trip to the shops or theatre or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.

    4. What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah's view of matters: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him." Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, says "A simple 'Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowhipped person?"

    5. Indeed, it is just as page 31 of the same issue of The Watchtower states: "The fact is that when a Christian gives himself over to sin and has to be disfellowshipped, he forfeits much: his approved standing with God;....sweet fellowship with the brothers, including much of the association he had with Christian relatives."

    6. In the Immediate Household: Does this mean that Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member are to avoid talking to, eating with, and associating with that one as they go about their daily activities? The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: "If in a Christian's household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activites." Thus, it would be left to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activites. And yet, they would not want to give brothers with him they associate the impression that everything is the same as it was before the disfellowshipping occurred.

    7. However, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 28, points out regarding the disfellowshipped or disassociated person: "Former spiritual ties have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his relatives, including those within his immediate family circle....That will mean changes in the spiritual fellowship that may have existed in the home. For example, if the husband is disfellowshipped, his wife and children will not be comfortable with him conducting a family Bible study or leading in Bible reading and prayer. If he wants to say a prayer, such as at mealtime, he has a right to do so in his own home. But they can silently offer their own prayers to God. (Prov. 28:9; Ps. 119:145,146) What if a disfellowshipped person in the home wants to be present when the family reads the Bible together or has a Bible study? The others might let him be present to listen if he will not try to teach them or share his religious ideas."

    8. If a minor child living in the home is disfellowshipped, Christian parents are still responsible for his upbringing. The Watchtower of November 15, 1988, page 20, states: "Just as they will continue to provide him with food, clothing, and shelter, they need to instruct and discipline him in line with God's Word. (Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17) Loving parents may thus arrange to have a home Bible study with him, even if he is disfellowshipped. Mabye he will derive the most corrective benefit from their studying with himalone. Or they may decide that he can continue to share in the family study arrangement."--See also The Watchtower of October 1, 2001, pages 16-17.

    9. Relatives Not in the Household: "The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home," states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. "It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if they were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum," in harmony with the divine injunction to "quit mixing in company with anyone" who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.--See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.

    10. The Watchtower addresses another situation that can arise: "What if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshipped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshipped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) .... What is done may depend on factors such as the parent's true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household."--The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.

    11. As for a child, the same article continues: "Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into their home for a time a disfellowshipped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshipped son lived on his own, and is no unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring 'leaven' into the home?--Gal. 5:9."

    12. Benefits fo Being Loyal to Jehovah: Cooperating with the Scriptual arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial. It preserves the cleanness of the congregation and distinguishes us as upholders of the Bible's high moral standards. (1 Pet. 1:14-16) It protects us from corrupting influences. (Gal. 5:7-9) It also affords the wrongdoer an oppotunity to benefit fully from the discipline received, which can help him to produce "peaceable fruit, namely righteousness."--Heb. 12:11.

    13. After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immeditately after the assembley, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. Shortly thereafter, his mother began attending meetings and was eventually reinstated. Also, her unbelieving husband began studying and in time was baptized.

    14. Loyally upholding the disfellowshipping arrangement outlined in the Scriptures demonstrates our love for Jehovah and provides and answer to the one who is taunting Him. (Prov. 27:11) In turn, we can be assured of Jehovah's blessing, King David wrote regarding Jehovah: "As for his statutes, I shall not turn aside from them. With someone loyal you will act in loyalty."--2 Sam. 22:23, 26.

    A New Watchtower Disfellowshipping Policy

    by Bill Bowen (This was Posted on this Message Board by Bill Bowen on August 6th 2002)

    As a few may recall Watchtower Policy has changed when circumstances serves the interest of the Governing Body in getting rid of someone they want to railroad. An example that has been offered involves Peter Gregerson. Peter was a personal friend to Ray Franz, in 1980 Peter wrote a letter to the Society, saying he wanted no further association with the organization. At that time a disassociation letter with no wrongdoing was handled with no shunning but simply as a person who walked away. When Gregerson left, the Governing Body created a new policy that stated all persons who disassociated would now be treated the same as disfellowshipped in a 1981 Watchtower. A few months later Ray Franz was found to be eating a meal with Gregerson along with their wives, once again there was no policy to cover this as a disfellowshipping offense. Yet, in short order a new article was written regarding "new" policy by the Governing Body. That is, anyone who eats with a disfellowshipped or disassociated individual would make themselves subject to disfellowshipment also. Result? Ray Franz was disfellowhipped not for apostasy, but for the "new light" given by the Governing Body stating, eating was considered a crime against God if it involved disfellowhipped individuals. Oddly enough neither of the two wives were disfellowshipped, perhaps at that time the policy only applied to men.

    This policy was yet adjusted again when the new "Flock" book came out in 1991. In a side note on page 103 an adjustment was offered at a Circuit Assembly elders meeting on 4-15-97 . There we were asked to add that a mother or father could eat with a son or daughter if nothing spiritual was discussed. If the mother or father wished to do this they would simply be viewed in the same context as a bad example and would not have exemplary privileges in the congregation such as elder, ms, or pioneering. The specific instruction given in the "Flock" book by side note was, "Do not take judicial action against relatives unless the disfellowshipped one fellowships spiritually with the brother or sister. If the brother or sister chooses to fellowship on spiritual matters with a disfellowshipped person, they become subject to judicial action."

    I wonder how Dick Moreland the chairman of the judicial committee for Ray Franz was able to determine Franz and Gregerson were having spiritual fellowship, but their wives were not? Or if it was determined that at the time the decision was made there was no spiritual fellowship between them, with the new adjustment, would the decision to disfellowhip Franz now be rescinded? Instead, could it have been a determination made by the Governing Body in a "disfellowship at all costs" maneuver? Did Brother Moreland act as a spiritual man and make a decision based on the information at hand or did he simply do as instructed with the spanking "new" policy of the Governing Body? It appears he did as told as he was shortly thereafter appointed as a District Overseer and remains so to this day, at the time he was a simple buck private elder sent in as a trouble shooter for the Society. It appears the Governing Body rewards well those who ignore honor and integrity to follow their bidding.

    Now reel forward five years later, with the latest comments in the August 2002, Kingdom Ministry insert, the policy has been adjusted yet again, the "new" adjustment is that even if you say a greeting to your mother or father you could be disfellowshipped. That new policy seems to be the harshest yet toward disfellowshipped ones and family members who wish to remain Jehovah's Witnesses. Is the Governing Body making other adjustments when it comes to how judicial matters are cared for? Do they have a high concern to take this step as only a last resort? In the rash of recent judicial cases involving those who have spo ken out to protect children, this appears to not be the case, I offer a few examples.

    In past protocol a judicial committee is required to inform either verbally or if circumstances dictate, in writing the time and place for the hearing. If the accused refuses to meet, and if proper evidence is obtained, such as confession or two or three eye witnesses, they may proceed with the hearing without the accused. If the accused is willing to meet, the committee will make every attempt for suitable arrangements that are kind to the accused so they may attend. The purpose is to give the accused every opportunity to defend themselves if they are innocent so justice can prevail.

    This was a foundation policy that has been in place for many years. Yet a "new" policy has emerged, no doubt at the direction of the Governing Body. It is as follows, the judicial committee demands a meeting time, if the committee chooses to not show up they are not required to inform the accused. If the accused is willing to meet requests in writing a more suitable meeting time, the judicial committee ignores this request and has a secret judicial hearing to disfellowship without informing the accused of the meeting. Expect a Watchtower article shortly to verify this "new light" to accommodate the whims of the Governing Body.

    The second policy relates to appeal committees. In past protocol, the accused typically has to inform the chairman of the original committee in writing of thei r r easons for wanting the appeal. The chairman informs the CO who then sets up an appeal committee to inform the accused of the time and place for the appeal hearing. Since the appeal of the accused is required to be in writing, the timetable for the appeal hearing has often been supplied in writing to the accused if circumstances dictate, so their would be not doubt or miscommunication regarding the appeal hearing. The purpose was to make the accused feel they were being given a careful review of the matter to determine if they had a fair hearing by the first committee. Both committees meet with the accused to determine if an error in judgment has occurred and/or the original committee had a proper basis in establishing the charges.

    "New" policy dictates that an attempt is made to inform the accused verbally. If they do not get the message, the appeal committee quickly confirms the original decision and makes the announcement the soonest Thursday, without informing the accused of the final decision. The accused is then left to wonder what happened until they are informed after the fact by a friend or relative who happens to find out.

    With Barbra Anderson, she was informed of an appeal hearing on a Sunday with a "two day" notice, she requested to meet later, the following wee ken d, as she was going to out of town on the requested wee ken d. The appeal committee went ahead with a secret meeting unknown to Barb at a local Motel, for less than an hour. The Chairman of the appeal committee called Barbara's attorney the next day and informed him they up held the decision of the original committee. The attorney immediately wrote a letter of appeal and protest of the decision. That Thursday without any notification to Barbara, the announcement was made that she had been disfellowshipped. She got no answer, no appeal, and no suggestion of trying to arrive at a fair and impartial decision.

    Fast forward to today. This morning at I was contacted by Dan McMullen an elder in the Princeton Kentucky Congregation. I was surprised to hear him over the telephone as once again I have specifically requested all communication go through my attorney in my appeal letter. When he informed me he was chair of the appeal committee, I immediately requested for him to please follow the instructions in my lette r r egarding contacting my attorney as to timing of the hearing, at which I hung up. I was not informed of any date or time for a hearing. I called my attorney at the end of the day and he had received no communication regarding the appeal hearing. So it would appear the appeal committee will follow a similar venue as with Barb Anderson, they will conduct another secret hearing, make a rubber stamp decision and make an announcement this Thursday of the outcome. Does that sound like a fair and impartial process to you?

    I plan to attend the meeting this Thursday, if any would like to attend with me I would welcome the support. What is the purpose? To let them know that the decision is a farce and they should be ashamed to treat those who support the protection of children in this manner. I plan to sit on the front row and dare them to make the announcement. The question is, will the fear of man that has prevented them from facing me to this point overcome them yet again? Or will they be willing to make public the stance of the Governing Body who orchestrate the "beating" of any brother and sister by disfellowshipping those who speak out on abuse?


    Here are some Quotes about HATE:

    Quote from The Watchtower October 1st 1952 Issue, Page 599:

    "We must HATE in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest. Surely any haters of God are not fit to live on his beautiful earth. What do you do with anything loathsome or repugnant that you detest and abhor? The answer is simple. You get away from it or remove it from your presence."

    Quote from The Watchtower July 15th 1961 Issue, Page 420:

    "When a person persists in a way of badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of his make-up, then in order to HATE what is bad a Christian must HATE the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked.. Jesus did not mean for us to love the hardened enemies of Jehovah"

    Quote from The Watchtower July 15th 1974 Issue, Page 442:

    "You have seen the benefit of godly love, but do you know how to HATE? These very strong words are an expression of godly HATE, and you too must have this quality to be pleasing to God. HATE causes a feeling of disgust to well up inside you. You loathe, abhor, despise the object of your hatred. Godly hatred never has as its object our Christian brothers, no matter how imperfect."

    Quote from The Watchtower June 15th 1980 Issue, Page 8:

    "More than that, we want to HATE those who willfully show themselves haters of Jehovah, haters of what is good"

    Quote from The Watchtower October 1st 1993 Issue, Page 19:

    "Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must HATE (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparable attached themselves to the badness."

    Quote from The Watchtower June 15th 1995 Issue, Page 7:

    "There is a difference, however, between hating the wrong and hating the person who commits the wrong."

    Page 8:

    "Yes, the international society of Jehovah's Witnesses is living proof that hatred can be abolished. It is a foreglimpse of a worldwide program to eliminate hatred and its causes."

    Matthew 5:43: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.'
    Matthew 5:44: But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,
    Matthew 5:45: that you may be children of your Father who is in Heaven. For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
    Matthew 5:46: For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?
    Matthew 5:47: If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?
    Matthew 5:48: Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

    Luke 6:27: "But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
    Luke 6:28: bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you.
    Luke 6:29: To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer also the other; and from him who takes away your cloak, don't withhold your coat also.
    Luke 6:30: Give to everyone who asks you, and don't ask him who takes away your goods to give them back again.
    Luke 6:31: "As you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them.
    Luke 6:32: If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
    Luke 6:33: If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
    Luke 6:34: If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive back as much.
    Luke 6:35: But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for He is kind toward the unthankful and evil.
    Luke 6:36: Therefore be merciful, Even as your Father is also merciful.
    Luke 6:37: Don't judge, And you won't be judged. Don't condemn, And you won't be condemned. Set free, And you will be set free.
    Luke 6:38: "Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, will be given to you. For with the same measure you measure it will be measured back to you."
    Luke 6:39: He spoke a parable to them. "Can the blind guide the blind? Won't they both fall into a pit?
    Luke 6:40: A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.
    Luke 6:41: Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?
    Luke 6:42: Or how can you tell your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck of chaff that is in your eye,' when you yourself don't see the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye.
    Luke 6:43: For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit.
    Luke 6:44: For each tree is known by its own fruit. For people don't gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.
    Luke 6:45: The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings out that which is good, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings out that which is evil, for out of the abundance of the heart, his mouth speaks.
    Luke 6:46: "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and don't do the things which I say?
    Luke 6:47: Everyone who comes to Me, and hears My Words, and does them, I will show you who he is like.
    Luke 6:48: He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock.
    Luke 6:49: But he who hears, and doesn't do, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great."

    Any Comments on the Quotes, or any other Quotes we should add about Disfellowshipping and Disassociation?

    My hope is that this Thread will become THE Resource Location for everything about Disfellowshipping and Disassociation.

    Below are Links to other Discussions on this Website about Disfellowshipping:














































    Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 1 September 2002 3:0:25

  • Englishman

    Excellent material, U D, thank you.

    I love this bit:

    Lynette's sister later told her: 'If you had viewed the disfellowshipping lightly, I know that I would not have taken steps toward reinstatement as soon as I did. Being totally cut off from loved ones and from close contact with the congregation created a strong desire to repent. I realized just how wrong my course was and how serious it was to turn my back on Jehovah.'

    Sounds like blackmail to me.


  • Marilyn

    Lynette's sister later told her: 'If you had viewed the disfellowshipping lightly, I know that I would not have taken steps toward reinstatement as soon as I did. Being totally cut off from loved ones and from close contact with the congregation created a strong desire to repent. I realized just how wrong my course was and how serious it was to turn my back on Jehovah.'

    >>>>Sounds like blackmail to me.

    Funny coz being treated like shit had the opposite effect on me. I just knew I'd made the right decision to leave.


  • searcher
    We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization

    God help us if these nutters ever achieve any kind of secular power.

    New light will shine on old light, old light will become new light and we'll all be dead.

    Be good news for the dubs though, there won't be anyone left to minister to so they won't have to go out.



  • WTLies

    Why is it, when many left after the failed prophecy of 1975, they were said to have been only serving God for a certain date? But when someone like Lynn's sister in the above article says she came back from being disfellowshipped so she could again talk to her sister, no witness will say, she only came back only for her sister.

    Being shunned does not make a person realized the wrongness of their course. It just makes them miss their family and friends. And since you're not supposed to develop any close relations with anyone not a JW. Then when you're kicked out, the control the Org has over your family and friends becomes very evident.

    Actually were they really your friends if in an instant they will treat you as though you didn't exist, without even knowing why they should do so? At the very least all the friendships among the JW's are conditional. The condition being, that you believe what they do, and that you do nothing that goes against the Society. So in effect your friendships and family ties, with everyone who is a Jehovah's Witness is contingent upon your having an approved status with the Watchtower Society.


    Former member of a Non-Prophet Organization

  • CC Ryder
    CC Ryder

    I thought this to be quite interesting:

    We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee."-Deut. 13:6-11, AS.

    Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws.

    The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

    It sounds like they really wished Stoning was back in fashion....How loving a thought.


  • Joyzabel

    Thank you U. D. for posting these quotes.

    CC Ryder, where did you get that quote? please list the source if it was besides in your head


  • Realist

    but disfellowshipping is in the bible...therefore these nutcases are obligated to follow this right? or could that be view differently?

  • CC Ryder
    CC Ryder

    Joy2bfree....I took the quote from this thread. Undisfellowshiped posted this information and I copied and pasted that bit from the Watchtower of Nov. 15th Questions to Readers.

    I just came back to this reply and noticed that it sounded harsh. I did not intend to be harsh to you Joy2bfree. Please accept my apology if you were offended. I am sorry for not stating where I took the quote from...I know it is requested in the guidelines for this forum that we do so. I edited out what I felt was a harsh reply to you. Thank you for pointing this reminder to me.

    I'll be more clearer in the future.=:-)>


    Edited by - CC Ryder on 31 August 2002 13:59:2

  • Grunt

    Thanks U.D.,
    Great job. I am saving this one. How tragic that this bunch throws away the New Testament commands to love and instead cling to the law that was done away with. I guess they will use the hair of a red cow to determine whether a wife has been faithful too, just like the Old Testament said. What a pack of hypocrites and fools with the hypocrites in charge.
    I am always amused with the way they quote scripture too. For instance in the quote 1 Cor.5:11,13:

    "anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man....Remover the wicked man from among yourselves."

    I find the verse they left out interesting:

    Here it is:
    12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside?

    Seems to me that verse twelve says the only ones they should judge are those still claiming to be "brothers." They love to try to hold on to control though don't they? Little piss-ants. They make me want to puke.


Share this