Is shunning unscriptual? (page 4)

stuckinarut2

Sanchy's comments in the first page of replies was Spot-On!

Well said sir!

sparrowdown

Deciding to refrain from hanging out with someone whose behavior is destructive and refuses to change is understandable as everyone has the right to protect themselves from harmful infuences.

Deciding to shun a family member or close friend absolutely and without mercy because they have doubts about the GB's claim of being hand selected by Jesus himself along with any other of WT's loose intepretive rules to do with personal choice is not only unscriptural but downright wrong!

wozza

How can JW's shun based on this "must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister"- iff I am an ex JW how can I be shunned using this scripture......? Notice it says anyone who claims to be a brother or sister ,NOT an exJW who does'nt want to be recognised as a JW .Its talking about ones who are mis-behaving within their ranks is'nt it?

aboveusonlysky

Great comments sanchy and dontfitin, let's face it you could write a list as long as your arm of scriptural contradictions to the way the Borg applies 1 Cor 5 & 2 John vs 10.

Interestingly 2 John is talking about the antichrist and here is the meaning of the word antichrist according to the NWT -

Antichrist. The Greek term has a twofold meaning. It refers to that which is anti, or opposed to, Christ. It may also refer to a false Christ, one in the place of Christ. All people, organizations, or groups that falsely claim to represent Christ or claim to be the Messiah or that oppose Christ and his disciples can properly be called antichrists.—1Jo 2:22

I'm pretty sure we can justify shunning WT literature and leadership on the basis that they have put themselves in the place of Christ with their never ending list of ridiculous rules.

Phizzy

The 7 members of the G.B all claim to be "anointed" , i.e they claim to be Christs. They claim to be vicariously representing Jesus, The Christ.

If such grandiose claims cannot be proven, they are the Antichrist, as defined above.

myelaine

dear MrTheocratic...

Paul is making a distinction between those in the congregation (where you would share a fellowship meal including the elements with the "brother") and those who are outside. He says in verse 10 that he didn't mean stop associating with these people outside the fellowship. If the "brother" is removed from the fellowship ie: disfellowshipped...he becomes part of the world, no longer a "brother". In which case he can be associated with as paul says because he no longer "contaminates" the purity of the "bride" or congregation which was the point in disfellowshipping. The JW's have no scriptural grounds for SHUNNING outside the doors of the kingdom halls. Jesus didn't shun and paul didn't encourage it either. Paul says it another way and for a different reason...if someone comes to your house (for fellowship as was the case in the early church) and he doesn't have the doctrine of Christ, don't allow him in or your have a part in his evil ways. Again, this is about the purity of the fellowship not about associations outside the congregational fellowship "meetings"

If you look at the context of the statement about "it isn't what enters the mouth that defiles a man but what comes out" it is talking about transgressing the commandment of God which the pharisees were doing with their traditions of men. Jesus was saying that the fact that His disciples didn't wash their hands only introduced germs that would be later eliminated. The pharisees introduced traditions of men that weren't eliminated...these traditions came out of their mouths and resulted in transgression of the law.

Paul didn't give the go ahead to eat "whatever". Being a torah observant jew, the foods that were meant to be received with thanksgiving were kosher only. There were judaizers that were forbidding the eating of (presumably market meats that were purchased daily where one wouldn't know) meats that were given by God to be eaten because they COULD have been used in sacrifice to idols. Paul said basically don't worry...buy the kosher meat and it will be sanctified by your prayer over it. IF you are invited to someones house and they tell you that the meat was used in idol worship then don't eat it...in doing so you will affect the conscience of those gathered. (negatively for those who are not wanting to eat things used in idol worship or for those that don't care it would be positive affirmation that it doesn't matter what a christian eats. Paul was saying it's a bad witness all around if you KNOWINGLY eat foods used in idol worship)

love michelle

BluesBrother

My two-penneth ....

The scriptures advocate expelling wrongdoers and apostates from the congregation. It has to be kept above reproach. The debate centres on how such ones are to be treated as they are now non members. The phrases used in the Bible are open to interpretation by men . Over the decades the WTS has swung from being more liberal to the tough stand of today.

The verse in 2 John relate to someone who repudiates Jesus Christ, not the WTS

Island Man

This text says nothing about shunning. It simply says not to associate with them. The Greek word translated as "not to associate" or "quit mixing in company with" is also used at 2 Thessalonians 3:14:

But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed.

But after saying "stop associating with him" notice what the very next verse (2 Thessalonians 3:15) says, and which reveals that the term is not referring to the strict shunning that JWs practice:

And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

If "stop associating with" means strict shunning, then how is a person to "continue admonishing" such persons as a brother? Remember: the same greek term is used here as at 1 Corinthians 5:11 and its use here in 2 Thessalonians demonstrates that the term does not refer to strict shunning devoid of all communication.

Island Man

So let me see if I understand
A person can only be shunned if they are fake Christians. For example ..Bro. Smith is trying to remain in the Congregation but won't give up immorality. He should be shunned according to this scripture.
But once he leaves ....you can resume association with him.
That does not seem right to me.

The point is that if the person is professing to be a christian ("called a brother") then his conduct reflects badly on the congregation and members stopping normal association with him signals to him and others that he is not living up to what it means to be christian and his actions are all on him and should not be attributed to what the congregation stands for. They're basically showing him up as an imposter, disavowing his claim of membership with them.

But once the person is no longer professing to be a christian then there's no longer any danger of his actions being attributed to the congregation. They no longer have to take extraordinary steps to show him up. He's now just another non-christian and not an imposter tarnishing the name of the congregation and its standing before god.

I Corinthians 5 is dealing with persons who want to continue to be a member of the congregation and have all the privileges of the brotherhood while living in gross sin. it does not apply to someone who is no longer a member and no longer wishes to be considered as a member enjoying the privileges of membership.

So scripturally, a person who disassociates from the JW organization and is living in sin should not be treated any differently from a never-JW living in sin.

MrTheocratic

Thanks guys ......every ones comments have been very informative. I can finally see that the shunning done by the witnesses is wrong and evil.

Thanks again

Is shunning unscriptual?

Share this