The right way to disfellowship - the wrong way to keep rapists.

by stevenyc 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • stevenyc
    stevenyc

    We know where Jehovah's Witnesses get the rules for disfellowshipping, Matthew 18:15-18, from Jesus. However, take a look at what He really said:

    NWT:

    Matt 18:15 "Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector

    First see the sinner yourself,

    Second, take along a couple of people,

    Third, speak to the CONGREGATION. Not one or two elders, but the CONGREGATION.

    In trying to make this an elder issue, the Watchtower of 10/15/99 says,

    A

    Final Effort to Gain Him

    16

    If step two fails to settle the matter, congregation overseers are definitely involved in the third step. "If he does not listen to [the one or two], speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." What does this entail? 17 We do not understand it as a directive to bring up the sin or wrong at a regular or special meeting of the whole congregation. We can determine the appropriate procedure from God’s Word. See what was to be done in ancient Israel in a case of rebellion, gluttony, and drunkenness: "In case a man happens to have a son who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his father and his mother must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones."—Deuteronomy 21:18-21. 18 The man’s sins were not heard and judged by the whole nation nor by all of his own tribe. Rather, the recognized "older men" dealt with it as representatives of the congregation. (Compare Deuteronomy 19:16, 17 about a case handled by ‘the priests and the judges who were acting in those days.’) Similarly today, when it is necessary to take the third step, the elders, who represent the congregation, handle the matter. Their goal is the same, to gain the Christian brother if at all possible. They reflect this by showing fairness, not prejudging the case or being partial.

    NWT:

    Deut 21:18"In case a man happens to have a son who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, 19 his father and his mother must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, 20 and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die. So you must clear away what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and indeed become afraid

    This bible passage indecates no communication between the sinner and the older men (or congregation, as the Watchtower is implying). Their job was to kill him to put fear into the rest of Israel. SO, the sentence was already made BEFORE the visit to the older men. They became the tool of punishment.

    SO, ignoring Jesus' words, lets have a look at using the Watchtower principle:

    In the 1995 Awake! 6/8 p9-11 is an article on forgiving and forgetting. Here are some highlights.

    What, though, if others sin against us in a more serious way, deeply injuring us? In extreme cases, such as incest, rape, and attempted murder, forgiveness may involve a number of issues. This would be particularly true when there is no acknowledgment of the sin, no repentance, and no apology on the part of the offender. (Proverbs 28:13) Jehovah himself does not forgive unrepentant, hardened wrongdoers. (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26) When a wound is deep, we may never succeed in completely putting what happened out of mind. However, we can be comforted by the assurance that in the coming new world, "the former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart." (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:4) Whatever we remember then will not cause us the deep hurt or pain that we may now feel.
    What, though, if despite your efforts to settle matters, the offender does not admit his wrong and apologize? Can you forgive in the sense of letting go of resentment? Forgiving others does not mean that we condone or minimize what they have done. Resentment is a heavy burden to carry; it can consume our thoughts, robbing us of peace. Waiting for an apology that never comes, we may only get more and more frustrated. In effect, we allow the offending person to control our emotions. Thus, we need to forgive others, or let go of the resentment, not only for their benefit but also for our own so that we may get on with our life.Forgiving others is not always easy. But when there is sincere repentance, we can try to imitate Jehovah’s forgiveness. When he forgives repentant wrongdoers, he lets go of resentment—he wipes the slate clean and forgets in that he will not hold those sins against them in the future. We too can work to let go of resentment when the offender is repentant. There may, however, be instances where we are not even obligated to forgive. No victim of extremes in unjust or cruel treatment should be forced to forgive an unrepentant wrongdoer. (Compare Psalm 139:21, 22.) But in most cases when others sin against us, we can forgive in the sense of letting go of resentment, and we can forget in the sense of not holding the matter against our brother at some future time.

    In a followup, the Watchtower wrote in Awake! 96 ,2/8 p30. From Our Readers:

    Forgive and Forget Thank you for the excellent article "The Bible’s Viewpoint: Forgive and Forget—How Possible?" (June 8, 1995) I used to wonder if the Bible was demanding something impossible from imperfect people. But now I understand what it means to forgive and forget. The article has contributed to my conviction that God’s commandments are not burdensome.

    C. I. C., Nigeria

    I just had to write and let you know how much I appreciate the article. As a young child, I was sexually abused by two of my uncles. Later, I was abused and mistreated as a wife. Upon becoming a Christian, I tried to show love and be forgiving. However, I have never been able to say honestly that I forgave these three people who caused me deep pain for many years. I realize now that there are some things that must be left in Jehovah’s hands, and I can get on with my life. Revelation 21:4 assures me that this deep hurt that has affected me will soon be gone.

    A. B., United States

    I have just finished reading the article, and I have never felt closer to Jehovah God than I do at this very moment. A while ago I was involved in a serious sin for which I sought the help of the congregation elders. Even though I received kind, loving counsel from them, I still felt inhibited in speaking to Jehovah in prayer. This article has given me the clearer understanding that I so desperately needed of how our heavenly Father forgives and forgets. It has enabled me to approach him freely in heartfelt prayer—a privilege that I had foolishly been avoiding. Thanks to Jehovah for giving me my "food at the proper time."—Matthew 24:45.

    The burden goes to the person who has been sinned against, and the sinner gets a clear conscience. If the sinner doesn't repent, the the victim has to get on with life, and shut up. The matter is never brought to the attention of the congregation so no one else is aware of the potential danger. The sinner is not disfellowshipped. The police are not involved.

    steve

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    bookmarking this for future use

    thanks-good info

  • sinis
    sinis

    How can the WTS mix the mosiac law with the principals that jesus was trying to set that would eventually lead to a new covenant? You CANNOT mix the two. I don't understand how they even pull this stuff out of the hat.

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    I must agree sinis - the two cultures, Jewish and Christian are often blended to give the organization a false premise of authority in these matters.

    One thing though - in the case of the Jewish elders in the gates of the city - this would be an open forum in which the people [corresponding in the watchtower thinking with the congregation] would be witnesses to the situation as it was discussed. There was certainly no little room in the back where we can send three already biased elders to probe and cajole and extract a confession, and then keep it privite and secret.

    Can you imagine the Jewish elders announcing in effect " We have found so-and-so guilty of a sin. We will not disclose the sin. Just pick up a stone and put him to death on our word."

    That is the basic tenet of DF'ing in the congregations. Inquisition is what it is. Just the same as.

    Jeff

  • carla
    carla

    I never understand that either! We go round and round sometimes about what Jesus said and then he brings up the OT laws. Don't they understand that Christians were no longer under the judaic law? It seems they just pick and choose when it suits them. carla

  • upside/down
    upside/down
    They became the tool of punishment.

    you said "tool"....

    Anyway, great points... I just wish I could remember stuff like this.

    u/d(of the appreciates it when guys do research well class)

  • Ingenuous
    Ingenuous

    I used to work with kids who'd been sexually assaulted. I saw pictures of their medical exams. This stuff makes me livid.

    When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

    And they add this weird detail:

    However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit.
    Does anyone know the point of this, given that they've already decided to do nothing about the allegation?
  • Forscher
    Forscher

    Interesting that they seem to miss the point that the hearing before the older men was done PUBLICALLY, not in hiding! Disqusting that they use it to justify SECRET hearings before Star Chamber tribunals. Even more disqusting that they insist that the elders are fair, not prejudging anything when they know that in their secret manual to the elders they make it clear that judicial committees are to be called when it has been established to their satisfaction that the person is guilty as charged. Thus, the elders go in with minds already made up for all practical purposes.

  • Cordelia
    Cordelia

    this stuff really annonys me i have just started athread about a big decission i have to make as i am dfed which will mean me losing my entire family, all because of the religons rules on dfing,

    didnt jesus fufill the old laws?

    didnt ancient isrealites just walk accross their doorstep with their partners and that meant they were married? id like to see what would happen if we all followed that particular rule! (how can they pick and choose like that?)

    didnt jesus eat with judas when he knew he was going to betray him? etc etc

    the more i hear the madder it makes me, this fooked up religon is spiltting peoples lives apart!!

  • sinis
    sinis

    The other thing the society fails to see is that Jesus, in verse 16, was not saying take two or three individuals who had witnessed the event (as the WTS likes to say). Rather, if your brother did not listen to your counsel than take a couple others who may be able to reason with him. After that take him before the cong so that they may reason with him. If these all failed than the admonision was to cast them out. The WTS interpretes the two witnesses as being observers of the offense - not true. These were brought in to kindly reason with a person and offer assistance if required.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit