by Disengaged 32 Replies latest jw friends
Hi All;
And thanks again for all the wonderful posts. But my reason for beginning this post/thread was because the elder deliberately had to coach the "friends" not to applaud. Is this Borg protocol? He,(The Elder) is notorious for doing this. Plus he has no children. And the person was just a young teenager with the hormones running wild.
The whole thing just wreaks "the spirit of meaness" not love.
IBBEROEAN "Just making sure!"
As Dame Edna Everage would say: "give em' the CLAP they so richly deserve"!
Marilyn
Disengaged,
Yes, to confirm: the official policy for reinstatement announcements is "no applause". I first heard of this instruction at a circuit assembly back in the 80's.
So your local elder was only following orders from headquarters.
Unfortunately, so is everybody else....yes it smacks of hatred and not love.
GopherAlways do right; this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
I suspect that some of you who have posted to this thread have not been the victims of the actions of the one who was disfellowshipped for cause and for whom you now wish to clap. It is much easier to cheer the reinstatement if you have not been crushed by this person’s actions. Let me give you some examples of persons who might not want to clap:
Disengaged said of the one he was concerned about:
“And the person was just a young teenager with the hormones running wild.”
I’m sure that his family was very glad to ‘have him back.’ But what if the parents and family of the object of this ‘indiscretion’ were also in the audience. Perhaps their teenager daughter was the object of an elder’s son’s “hormones running wild?” Maybe they feel that if this teenager had not ‘encouraged’ their teenager the whole mess wouldn’t have happened. What if their teenager is not being reinstated at the same time for whatever reason?
In another case, perhaps one spouse was unfaithful to the other spouse and the family is forever scarred and possibly fractured beyond repair. Can you see that while some might want to cheer the reinstatement, others would not yet be ready to forgive? Can you grant that some family members or friends of the parties may know more than the elders do and have private thoughts about the reinstatement that are not very sympathetic? Perhaps some “know” as I did in the case I sighted earlier that the reinstated person was far from repentant or the damage of this person’s actions was so devastating that it would take many years for the wounds to heal, if they could ever heal?
While some of you have referred to the prodigal son example of forgiveness, remember that that case involved a parent and a child. Almost all parents are willing to forgive almost all “sins” of their child. However, Jesus said that in the case of marriage one who “sinned’ against the marriage did not need to be forgiven. That is, the innocent mate was not required to forgive the adultery of the other mate. The offended mate could proceed with divorcee, thereby forever breaking the marriage contract and leaving the offending mate in a state of non-forgiveness.
So, as SJ and Philo have suggested earlier, in the eyes of each of us there may be legitimate differences of opinion about the merits of an individual reinstatement.
Sorry, but reinstatement is not always a time to cheer. Too many elders (read JC) have “blown it” too many times, IMHO.
Whether Dfing should happen at all is another issue for other threads. We all come from a different prospective and will see things differently and while cheering may be appropriate on some occasions, I have seen too many cases where the reinstatement (by JW standards) was so premature as to be sickening.
Regards,
Sam Beli
G'day Sam,
Nice to hear a newbie's thoughts in this happy place.
It would seem to me that, since the WTBTS claims to be Bible-based, that all the actions and procedures it adopts and promotes should be Bible-based.
What do we know from the scriptures about this topic? Actually, not much. There is only one example of DFing in the New Testament. There was a restoration. We know too that Jesus gave his well-known parable of the Prodigal Son to demonstrate our heavenly Father's desire to welcome back sinners. That parable also exposed the Pharisees for the hard-hearted legalists that they were.
Now what do we know about the Society's procedures?
Judicial committees: not mentioned in scripture
Restrictions following re-instatement: not mentioned in scripture
Disassociation=disfellowshipping: not mentioned inscripture
Need I go on?
It's a bit rich, old son, expressing how you agree with the Society on this one. All we have been able to do is express what we think. Well, good for us! If we're to effectively demonstrate the error of the WTBTS in the whole DF/DA area, we need to expose their errors are because they do not follow the very Scriptures they claim to believe.
Cheers,
Ozzie
"Truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by persuading."
TERTULLIAN, Adversus Valentinianos
Dear Ozzie
Nice to hear from you as well. There is little fault to find with what you say. Since the scriptures are silent on much of the specifics of this topic we have only general guidelines to follow: the prodigal son parable for one; the grounds for divorce is another.
The WTS has made rules in the area of marriage and divorce that go far beyond scripture. Similarly, they have made rules in the Dfing area too that are not Bible based, as we here all know.
On the subject of this topic I have stated my reasons for not wanting to clap on most occasions when a reinstatement is announced (though the point is irrelative since I have not attended meetings for years and do not plan to ever attend again).
I am just trying to make the point that there are valid reasons to not cheer on some of these occasions. The early comments were one-sided in favor of clapping and I just wanted to post the other side of the story. I never boo or hiss when Dfing announcements are made and I never clap when reinstatements are announced either. I think both are in bad taste.
Hugs and well wishes later are fine for those so inclined.
A few disclaimers:
1. I have had a very close relative DF’ed
2. I have not had a close friend DF’ed
3. I have had a very close relative reinstated
4. I have not had a close friend reinstated
5. I never go to meetings anymore anyway (repeated for emphasis)
Regards,
Sam Beli
Sam,
The point is that the Society is saying that NOBODY can clap. No one is saying that anyone should be obligated to applaud a reinstated one. If someone feels it is inappropriate, it is his business. If someone wants to express his happiness by clapping, then by god he should have the right to do so.
The fact is that there are many cases of disfellowshipping that do not involve other "victims" in the congregation. Blanket policies like this tend to stifle genuine expression in many cases in which it is not necessary. My own brother was disfellowshipped for underage drinking. There were many people who knew of the situation and who were actually involved. Of the 10 or 15 brothers and sisters directly involved (they were also drinking underage), my brother was the only one disfellowshipped. Everyone knew it was a farce, but it happened. He was reinstated just a few months later, to everyone's delight. Even though the elder making the announcement cautioned the congregation not to clap, the brothers and sisters did anyway. This example just goes to show that there are just as many valid circumstances in which there is no victim, thus a blanket policy would only stifle genuine expression in many such cases.
Even though I don't believe in disfellowshipping at all, I do believe that if they Society is going to continue the practice, they should let the congregation know why the person is being disfellowshipped. That way people can make an informed decision (first of all whether or not they want to continue association with the disfellowshipped person - but that is just a pipe dream) on how they choose to welcome the disfellowshipped person back. If people knew that the person was a pedophile, then there would probably be more love shown to the victim, or at least more caution when the person is reinstated. If the person is a smoker, then again - it's a victimless sin and it would be completely acceptable for people to express their joy through applause. Anyway, I digress.
So to sum up: if you want to clap, then clap. If not, then don't. Everyone has their own reasons for their decision. This expression of genuine happiness should not be legislated by the thought police up in Brooklyn. It's like the brother in the prodigal son parable saying that there should be no party since he was offended. Well, if he's offended, then he doesn't need to join the festivities, but he should have no right to stifle the genuine expressions of others.
rem
Dear Rem;
Thanks you so much for the post. But I have to ask you, what was the response when the friends did in fact applause? I would love to have to applauded the other night. And I agree we should not be dictated to from Brooklyn, but there are many who hold what they say as being "inspired".
P.S. Thanks again qwerty
IBBEROEAN "Just making sure!"
Disengaged,
As far as I know, nothing was said. This happened when the rule had just come out and people didn't really know if it was official or not yet. There was a lot of tension because so many people knew the brothers went too far with my brother's situation. Everyone was relieved that he was back, and in record time. I was not actually there when he was reinstated - I was in a different congregation at the time. My mother related the story to me after it happened.
I was a selfrighteous MS prick at the time. If the Society said not to clap, then I would not have clapped back then even if I wanted to! :)
I would not actually recommend it nowdays since the rule is pretty much observed as official procedure now. I would imagine clapping would prompt a little talk with the elders after the meeting these days.
On another note - Has anyone noticed that the Society seems to have really loosened up on the whole "dignity of the occasion" BS during the baptism? It went from free-for-all, to strict, somber observance with plenty of warnings not to be overly expressive (to presever the dignity). The last couple of assemblies it seems that they have not made the same announcements. Seems like they've cooled off on that a bit.
rem
Rem,
A "self-righteous MS prick"...............Been there done that!
IBBEROEAN "Just making sure!"
