I am curious about the history of Disfellowshipping and Disassociation Doctrines. I know that they changed the DA rules when Ray and Co were leaving so that no one could talk to people who disassociated themselves -- to close the loophole. I am wondering if that's also when the DF rules also became more harshly and strictly enforced. Before Ray, was "apostasy" really ever an issue? Before Ray were they afraid of their dirtly little secrets becoming public. Is that the real reason for the harsh enforcement of the DF/DA policy? I also wonder the percentage of persons disfellowshipped in general prior to 1980 versus since 1980.
Progression of changes with DF/DA Doctine
by Bubbamar 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
No Apologies
I could be wrong (I frequently am), but I don't think the DA thing was started with Ray. My understanding is that they declared associating with a DF'd person was grounds for DFing, and then retroactively applied that to him, after he was seen eating lunch with his boss, who was DF'd.
I have heard that the usage of DA really started with one Michael Jackson, when he finally had enough of the cheese and cracker men trying to tell him what he could and couldn't do as the King of Pop. He probably did not want to be DF'd, and he probably had a little more clout than the regular JW pulled into the library. So the DA thing was cooked up as a way of him exiting, kinda like a no-fault divorce.
Over time, though the use of DA has grown. As more and more JWs have begun questioning the org, many of them have used a DA letter as a way to exit the organization in a more dignified manner, "you can't fire me, I quit!" And it is being used now for politically sensitive areas like voting and blood transfusions. They simply say the person has voluntarily, by their actions, chosen to disassociate themselves.
No Apologies
-
XQsThaiPoes
I know the DA policy is still a loop hole. For legal reasons they can't directly tell you to shun DAed people. Not that the DAed person could sue, but because in other countries to be legal they have to set it up that way. Notice how if you read the magazines they never mention how to treat DAed people except in their "how to treat DF people articles". Here are snips from a article on DAing. It never actually says to shunn a DAed person. It only implies you can. It renames Disassociation to "rejects the congregation". This is all legal positioning to tell people to shun DAed people with out saying it.
***
w88 4/15 p. 27 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***Such shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation
***
w88 4/15 pp. 27-28 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views.?Hebrews 12:15, 16.
***
w88 4/15 p. 27 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are ?fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.?
***
w88 4/15 p. 28 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children... Yet, since his being disfellowshipped does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue (no coment on DAing in the latter part).
***
w88 4/15 p. 28 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home (notice not or but "and").
***
w88 4/15 pp. 28-29 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***16
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 (notice use of the word converse not shun).***
w88 4/15 p. 29 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***20
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 (notice it did not say shunned by Jehovah's Witnesses).***
w88 4/15 p. 31 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***(A disassociated person can similarly request to become part of the congregation again.)
-
the mole
just to add to this...i was disassociated when i was 14 for smoking weed at the parking lot during our cowpalace convention with some other kids who went to my hall...this was 1977..all of us had our name annouced in the hall..the brothers told my parents since i was not baptised this was the only form of punishment to keep our hall clean...it meant me and my friends couldnt go to the picnic or get invited to some get together....as far as me and my friends, we were never invited to anything anyways so it didnt mean much..my dad was already df'd for questioning their 1975 date of the new kingdom..they said he had lack of faith and df'd him...my mom was df'd after 1984..the scandal of bethel trickled to sacramento..my moms friends questioned the org and so began the apostasy years which effected many of our friends...the mole
-
metatron
As near as I can recall, here's how it goes:
Knorr and Franz come up with "disassociated" rather than df'd to carefully cover situations in which a person
joins the armed forces. They were afraid of legal action/persecution against the organization if it became too obvious
that they expel any one who joins the army. Recently, they used this "disassociated" status in cases of a Witness
taking blood - they lied to European governments by saying such ones "disassociate themselves".
In Ray Franz's case, the situation involved a brother who renounced the organization explicitly. The Society then treated
such ones the same as df'd - and nailed Ray for eating lunch with the guy. Actually, the plan to df Ray was in motion before
he left, they just needed a pretext to do it to silence him. With Crisis of Conscience being massively printed, the nazis
failed.
metatron
-
wednesday
As far as i understood it, it is just a legal tool, used to protect the WTS from telling people they can't serve in the armed forces, or vote. I believe that is how it got started, b/c the usa considers that really bad to tell a person they can't vote, or chose to serve their country. It's use proved good, (saving them form lawsuits and trouble the goverment ) so its use was exanded. to a lot of other issues, the blood issue for one.
but as a long time 3rd generation elder once told me,any REAL JWS can read between the lines and knows that the org has to do this to protect itself, and we should be loyal to the org and treat those persons as DF person. we can't DF them but we can DA them.
lawyers are running the org as we all know. it is all legal stuff to keep them out of hot water.
-
ellderwho
...i was disassociated when i was 14 for smoking weed at the parking lot during our cowpalace convention with some other kids who went to my hall...this was 1977
Hey mole, I was Da'ed in `81 for simular offences and then some. There was not really a policy in effect for these "reproachable" actions other than to Da someone. (who was not baptized)
Mom has never shunned me at all. Deep down I dont think she could. Maybe if I were Baptized and DF'ed.
E.
-
Sunspot
When I wrote my DA letter to the PO and to the WTS, I asked to et it be known that b THEIR actions and my conscience, that *I* no longer wanted to be considered one of Jehovah's Witnesses.(Then I gave the reasons why)
I had done NOTHING worthy of disfellowshiping. In a debate with a JW woman on B'net, she said that by DAing, that I WANTED to be separate from JWs and that meant that they would shun me. I didn't follow her reasoning---that MY beefs were with the WTS and not with individual JWs, but that didn't fly.
It seems as though there would be some difference between the two actions--DFing and DAing, but they are both to be shunned.
Of course it's all based on fear---showing "look what HAPPENS if YOU deviate from our rules and have independant thinking" nonsense---and as unfair as it IS---it works! Look how many stay in to avoid problems that would automatically arise if they left.
I was told that DFing is better than DAing, because one who is DFed has done something unchristian and just hasn't repented of his sin (yet) but the one who DA'e himself has deliberately CHOSEN to leave Jehovah and renounce his vows....a much worse "violation" in the WTS' eyes.
Whatever..........
Annie
-
GermanXJW
***
w85 7/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***Questions
From Readers·
Did 2 John 10, which says not to receive into one?s home or to greet certain ones, refer only to those who had promoted false doctrine?In context this counsel concerned the "many deceivers" who had gone forth, "persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh." (2 John 7) The apostle John offered directions on how Christians back there should treat one who denied that Jesus had existed or that he was the Christ and Ransomer. John directed: "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 10, 11) But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application.
At one time among the Christians in Corinth, a man was practicing immorality, and the apostle Paul wrote them to "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) Now, did that apply to former brothers who had been expelled only for the gross wrongs there listed?
No. Revelation 21:8 shows also that such individuals as unrepentant murderers, spiritists, and liars are included among those who merit the second death. Surely the counsel in 1 Corinthians 5:11 would also have been applied with equal force to former Christians guilty of these wrongs. Further, John wrote that some "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) John did not say that they had been expelled for gross sin. Perhaps some of them just quit, deciding that they no longer wanted to be in the congregation because they disagreed over a doctrine. Others may have grown tired and given out.?1 Corinthians 15:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; Hebrews 12:3, 5.
Of course, if a brother had begun to stray into sin, mature Christians would have tried to help him. (Galatians 6:1; 1 John 5:16) If he had doubts, they would have attempted to ?snatch him out of the fire.? (Jude 23) Even if he had become inactive, not going to meetings or in the public ministry, spiritually strong ones would have striven to restore him. He might have told them that he did not want to be bothered with being in the congregation, reflecting his weakened faith and low spirituality. They would not have badgered him, but they might occasionally have made a friendly visit on him. Such loving, patient, merciful efforts would have reflected God?s interest that none be lost.?Luke 15:4-7.
In contrast, John?s words indicate that some went further than spiritual weakness and inactivity; they actually repudiated God?s congregation. Someone may have come out openly in opposition to God?s people, declaring that he no longer wanted to be in the congregation. He may even have renounced his former faith formally, such as by a letter. Of course, the congregation would have accepted his decision to disassociate himself. But how would they then have treated him?
John says: "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him." (2 John 9, 10) Those words certainly would have applied to a person who became an apostate by joining a false religion or by spreading false doctrine. (2 Timothy 2:17-19) But what about those who John said "went out from us"? While Christians in the first century would know that they should not associate with an expelled wrongdoer or with an active apostate, did they act similarly toward someone who was not expelled but who willfully renounced the Christian way?
Aid
to Bible Understanding shows that the word "apostasy" comes from a Greek word that literally means "?a standing away from? but has the sense of ?desertion, abandonment or rebellion.?" The Aid book adds: "Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb. 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb. 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2 Pet. 2:15-22), the heeding of the ?counterfeit words? of false teachers and ?misleading inspired utterances? ( . . . 1 Tim. 4:1-3) . . . 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. By deliberately repudiating God?s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate. Even if they had been friends, when someone repudiated the congregation, apostatizing, he rejected the basis for closeness to the brothers. John made it clear that he himself would not have in his home someone who ?did not have God? and who was "not of our sort."
Scripturally, a person who repudiated God?s congregation became more reprehensible than those in the world. Why? Well, Paul showed that Christians in the Roman world daily contacted fornicators, extortioners, and idolaters. Yet he said that Christians must "quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother" who resumed ungodly ways. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) Similarly, Peter stated that one who had "escaped from the defilements of the world" but then reverted to his former life was like a sow returning to the mire. (2 Peter 2:20-22) Hence, John was providing harmonious counsel in directing that Christians were not to ?receive into their homes? one who willfully ?went out from among them.??2 John 10.
John added: "For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 11) Here John used the Greek word of greeting khai´ro rather than the word a·spa´zo·mai, found in verse 13.
Khai´ro
meant to rejoice. (Luke 10:20; Philippians 3:1; 4:4) It was also used as a greeting, spoken or written. (Matthew 28:9; Acts 15:23; 23:26) A·spa´zo·mai meant "to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome." (Luke 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 21:7, 19) Either could be a salutation, but a·spa´zo·mai may have implied more than a polite "hello" or "good-day." Jesus told the 70 disciples not to a·spa´se·sthe anyone. He thus showed that their urgent work allowed no time for the Eastern way of greeting with kisses, embraces, and long conversation. (Luke 10:4) Peter and Paul urged: ?Greet [a·spa´sa·sthe] one another with a kiss of love, or a holy kiss.??1 Peter 5:14; 2 Corinthians 13:12, 13; 1 Thessalonians 5:26.So John may deliberately have used khai´ro in 2 John 10, 11 rather than a·spa´zo·mai (verse 13). If so, John was not urging Christians then to avoid merely warmly greeting (with an embrace, kiss, and conversation) a person who taught falsehood or who renounced the congregation (apostatized). Rather, John was saying that they ought not even greet such an individual with khai´ro, a common "good-day."
The seriousness of this counsel is evident from John?s words: "He that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." No true Christian would have wanted God to view him as sharing in wicked works by associating with an expelled wrongdoer or with one who rejected His congregation. How much finer to be a sharer in the loving Christian brotherhood, as John wrote: "That which we have seen and heard we are reporting also to you, that you too may be having a sharing with us. Furthermore, this sharing of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."?1 John 1:3.
[Footnotes]
Webster?s
New Collegiate Dictionary says "apostasy" is "1: renunciation of a religious faith 2: abandonment of a previous loyalty."Regarding the use of khai´ro in 2 John 11, R. C. H. Lenski comments: "[It] was the common greeting on meeting or on parting. . . . Here the sense is: Do not even give the proselyter this greeting! Already this makes you a participant in the wicked works for which he has come. John [refers] . . . to a greeting of any nature."