Shunning: The Watchtower's Self-Inflicted Wound

by slimboyfat 117 Replies latest members campaign

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Looking at my original post from seven years ago, it seems that Watchtower have gone some of the way to replacing shunning with a strategy of keeping contact and reaching out to former JWs. But they still have some distance to go if they want to practise what the book says is the best strategy of unconditional love for children whatever their religious choices happen to be. At the moment JWs are in a half way house between full on shunning and reaching out. Will they ever drop shunning entirely and replace it with unconditional acceptance?

  • dropoffyourkeylee
    dropoffyourkeylee
    When I was in the business world, speaking of customers, we used to say that people vote with their feet and with their pocketbooks
  • HereIam60
    HereIam60

    In decribing the disciplinary action taken in the first century, the scripture states "the rebuke given by the majority is sufficient.." (2 Corinthians 2:6) and thereafter the person is welcomed back. This seems to indicate to me that it was not a total cutting off, as though a person was no longer brother or sister, but instead a withdrawl from close companionship while they were known to be in a situation violating scriptural moral principles, but still kind, decent treatment, and social interaction. This from the majority of the congregation. A "minority" possibly close famiy members , maintained normal relations.

    "Disfellowshipping", as so rigidly and harshy practiced by some JWs in modern times has given that word a totally negative connotation. The now used " Removed" is scriptural "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.." (1 Corinthians 5:13), but to me sounds even worse, as though the person had been bodily escorted or carried out of the Kingdom Hall, and their name crossed off the enrollment, as supposedly we no longer have 'members' (which is a scriptural term) but instead 'adherents'.

    It used to be announced "So and So is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" but legally who makes that determination? Suppose I say "You may say you have removed me, but I Am still one of Jehovah's Witnesses!". Am I then, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, once- removed ?

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    “Removed” used to be a word for elders that got demoted from being elders. I’ve heard the word “deleted” too but I don’t know if that replaced “removed” or they were/are used interchangeably.

    If “removed” is now used in place of “disfellowshipped” I guess they need to use a different word for elders who are demoted from being elders to avoid confusion.

    Christadelphians and brethren tend to use terminology like “withdraw from” or “no longer in fellowship”.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    Well, if you are going to go code, then go full code. I prefer phrases such as "papa smurfed" or "promoted to work at the acorn factory".

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    "We regret to announce that Brother Jones has been bitch-slapped, and is no longer serving as an elder."

  • dropoffyourkeylee
    dropoffyourkeylee

    I think the Elder's manual uses the word 'deleted' in the section on Elders being removed/demoted. I haven't looked at the book for decades, so maybe the newer versions have changed the wording.

  • blondie
    blondie

    1991 "disfellowshipped persons"

    2025 this is said on the link to the 1991 article "reports to elders on visits to removed ones" instead of the term "disfellowshipped persons" quite deceptive, a search Watchtower Online Library shows many other quotes using "disfellowshipped" in the past.

    In 1927, The Watch Tower urged loyal ones in the congregations to remove from positions of eldership any whose speech or actions showed that they did not accept the responsibility of witnessing publicly and from house to house

    More info: https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/disfellowship-shunning.php

    Elders removed 8-1-1975 Letter to elders Organization book) p.167 (In WOL under Elders) "Of course, if an elder or ministerial servant commits a serious wrong requiring public reproof or disfellowshiping he should be removed. You would not have to wait for the official letter of removal to be received from the governing body before removing such privileges from the individual.​—or, p. 167.

    Also the WTS uses the term "stepping down" when it is the elders choice for personal reasons.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit