What is the official stance on shunning family that "faded"?

by Wild_Thing 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Wild_Thing

  Does anybody have any quotes from Watchtower literature or video that shows what their stance is on associating with family who have left the Witnesses? Or even what the unofficial stance is?

  Not disfellowshipped or officially disassociated, just "inactive" for say 15-20 years, but also openly living a "worldly" life birthdays, holidays, including attending another church? Do any of those things even factor in onto the extent of the shunning?

  My mother claims that the Witnesses now see people that left the witnesses as "lost sheep" and they don't encourage shunning. My sister's behavior says otherwise. Trying to reconcile the this conflict in apparent "truth".

  Thanks for your help!
• 

  steve2

  This is one of the Frequently Asked Questions currently on JW.org.

  According to the official answer, "inactive" ones are not viewed as disassociated. But check out the full official answer.
  
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Not a direct answer to your question, might still be interesting:
  Do you regularly visit a church?
  According to the elders' manual:
  

  If it is learned that a person has taken up association with another religious organization and thus is identified with it, a committee (not judicial) should be selected to investigate matters and endeavor to provide spiritual assistance. If the individual has joined another religious organization and intends to remain with it, he has disassociated himself.
  [...]
  6. If members of the congregation are known to

  have undue association with disfellowshipped

  or disassociated relatives who are not in the

  household, elders should counsel and reason with

  those members of the congregation from the Scrip

  tures. Review with them information from the

  “God’s Love” book, pages 207-208; The Watchtower

  of April 15, 1988, pages 26-30; or the article “Dis

  play Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellow

  shipped” in the August 2002 Our Kingdom Ministry.
  

  If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of

  the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does

  not respond to counsel, it may be that he would

  not qualify for congregation privileges, which require

  one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judi

  cially unless there is persistent spiritual association or

  he openly criticizes the disfellowshipping decision.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Another quote from the elders manual, more to the point:

  41. Depending upon length of inactivity and other factors suggested above, elders may determine to hold the matter in abeyance. In such a case, they would make a record of the person’s questionable conduct for the congregation file. When the individual again shows interest in returning to the congregation, they can clarify these matters.
  42. If the sinful conduct is known only to believing family members and no congregation action has been taken, believing relatives will likely determine to curtail family association severely, viewing the relative as bad association.—1 Cor. 15:33; w85 7/15 p. 19
• 

  smiddy

  Jehovah`s Witnesses / the Governing Body / F&DS class /Writing Dept. whatever , all speak out of both sides of their mouth .

  Just a casual look at what they say in print over the years , what they state in JW.ORG .and especially the Australian Royal Commission into Institutions of Child Sexual Abuse .

  It all changes with the blow of the wind . or the waves of the sea.

  Their beliefs are like a cork in the ocean blowing this way or that way depending on the wind.

  What the GB said yesterday is not what the GB says today , and what they will say tomorrow is not what they are saying today.

  As I said at the opening of this post , they speak out of both sides of their mouth to cover all bases .

  It is difficult to pin them down on one issue because they have multiple answers to fall back on.

  with the excuse that was old light .

  smiddy
• 

  punkofnice

  42. If the sinful (Appeal to fear?) conduct is known only to believing (Us VS: Them?) family members and no congregation action has been taken, believing relatives will likely determine (In other words - obey or get DFd yourselves) to curtail family association severely, viewing the relative as bad association.—1 Cor. 15:33; w85 7/15 p. 19 (Appeal to authority. Out of context scripture)

  
  

  Any other thoughts on the level of propaganda in this small section?

  Any actual sickening quotes from the CONvention?
  
  
• 

  Phizzy

  It all comes down to how your JW family and the local Elders interpret things, but I fully expect to see at the very minimum a hardening of attitudes after the R.C's this year.

  Many faders like Mrs Phizzy and myself are not known to be "sinning" in any way, though in fact we cewlebrate Christmas and Birthdays, and I indulge in the odd Cigar, but to the JW's we are simply inactive and sqeaky clean.

  Even so I expect even less contact than we have at present with my JW family.
• 

  What Now?

  We were inactive, and got tattoos and piercings and our families still stayed in full contact with us.

  It was only after we started openly celebrating holidays and birthdays that they started shunning us.
• 

  konceptual99

  If you are openly celebrating birthdays and holidays then expect less contact after the RC. It's not a new instruction but a rare reminder that inactive ones persisting in "wrongdoing" should essentially be shunned.
• 

  Wild_Thing

  Thank you to everyone for sharing their experiences and information. That was what I was afraid of. The problem with finding Watchtower quotes about this or anything else is they don't want to admit it was even printed if it is more than two years old. Their beliefs, doctrines, and directives to their members seem to change on almost a yearly basis now. I feel like they need to publish a yearly bulletin on their changes in beliefs and practices. It is hard to keep up with when you are no longer one of them. I wonder if those on the inside find it hard to keep up, too.