Could they both be right?
You may wonder why I should choose to open an article on disfellowshipping with a quotation from Micah 6:8. As I researched this topic, I began to see how complex and far-reaching are its implications. It is easy to get mired in such confusing and emotionally charged issue. Yet, truth is simple. It’s power comes from that simplicity. Even when the issues seem complex, they always rest on the simple foundation of truth. Micah, in just a handful of inspired words, beautifully sums up the whole obligation of man. Viewing this issue through the lens he provides will help us cut through the obscuring clouds of false teaching and get to the heart of the matter.
Three things God is asking back from us. Each one bears on the issue of disfellowshipping.
So in this post, we will look at the first of these three: The Proper Exercise Of Justice.
The Exercise of Justice Under the Mosaic Law Code
When Jehovah first called a nation unto himself, he gave them a set of laws. This law code made allowance for their nature, for they were a stiff-necked lot. (Exodus 32:9) For example, the law provided protection and just treatment for slaves, but it didn’t eliminate slavery. It also allowed men to have multiple wives. Still, the intention was to bring them to the Christ, much like a tutor conveys his young charge to the teacher. (Gal. 3:24) Under Christ, they were to receive the perfect law.[i] Still, we can get some idea of Jehovah’s view of the exercise of justice from the Mosaic law code.
it-1 p. 518 Court, Judicial
The local court was situated at the gate of a city. (De 16:18; 21:19; 22:15, 24; 25:7; Ru 4:1) By “gate” is meant the open space inside the city near the gate. The gates were places where the Law was read to the congregated people and where ordinances were proclaimed. (Ne 8:1-3) At the gate it was easy to acquire witnesses to a civil matter, such as property sales, and so forth, as most persons would go in and out of the gate during the day. Also, the publicity that would be afforded any trial at the gate would tend to influence the judges toward care and justice in the trial proceedings and in their decisions. Evidently there was a place provided near the gate where the judges could comfortably preside. (Job 29:7) Samuel traveled in a circuit of Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah and “judged Israel at all these places,” as well as at Ramah, where his house was located.—1Sa 7:16, 17. [Italics added]
The older men [elders] sat at the gate of the city and the cases they presided over were public, witnessed by anyone who happened to be passing by. The prophet Samuel also judged at the city gate. You may think this only has to do with civil matters, but consider the issue of apostasy as related at Deuteronomy 17:2-7.
“In case there should be found in your midst in one of your cities that Jehovah your God is giving you a man or a woman who should practice what is bad in the eyes of Jehovah your God so as to overstep his covenant, 3 and he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, a thing that I have not commanded, 4 and it has been told you and you have heard it and have searched thoroughly, and, look! the thing is established as the truth, this detestable thing has been done in Israel! 5 you must also bring that man or that woman who has done this bad thing out to your gates, yes, the man or the woman, and you must stone such one with stones, and such one must die. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness. 7 The hand of the witnesses first of all should come upon him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward; and you must clear out what is bad from your midst. [Italics added]
There is no indication that the older men judged this man in private, keeping the names of the witnesses secret for the sake of confidentiality, then brought him to the people so they could stone him on the word of the older men alone. No, the witnesses were there and presented their evidence and were also required to throw the first stone before all the people. Then all the people would do likewise. We can easily imagine the injustices that would have been possible if Jehovah’s law provided for secret judicial proceedings, making the judges answerable to no one.
Let us look at one more example to drive our point home.
“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.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) [Italics added]
It is clear that when dealing with issues involving the death penalty under Israelite law the case was heard publicly—at the city gates.
The Exercise of Justice Under the Law of the Christ
Since the law code of Moses was a mere tutor bringing us to Christ, we can expect that the exercise of justice would achieve its highest form under the kingship of Jesus.
Christians are counseled to resolve issues internally, not relying on secular courts. The reasoning is that we will judge the world and even angels, so how could we then go before law courts to settle matters between ourselves. (1 Cor. 6:1-6)
However, how were early Christians intended to deal with wrongdoing that threatened the congregation? There are very few examples in the Christian Scriptures to guide us. (Considering how big and complex our entire judicial system has become, it is most telling that the Scriptures offer so very little guidance on the subject.) Jesus’ law is based on principles not an extensive code of laws. Extensive law codes are a characteristic of independent Pharisaical thinking. Still, we can glean much from what does exist. Take for example the case of a notorious fornicator in the Corinthian congregation.
“Actually fornication is reported among YOU, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, that a wife a certain [man] has of [his] father. 2 And are YOU puffed up, and did YOU not rather mourn, in order that the man that committed this deed should be taken away from YOUR midst? 3 I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already, as if I were present, the man who has worked in such a way as this, 4 that in the name of our Lord Jesus, when YOU are gathered together, also my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 YOU hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord… 11 But now I am writing YOU 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. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 11-13)
To whom is this counsel written? To the body of elders of the Corinthian congregation? No, it was written to all the Christians in Corinth. All were to judge the man and all were to take the appropriate action. Paul, writing under inspiration, makes no mention of special judicial proceedings. Why would such be needed. The congregation members knew what was going on and they knew God’s law. As we’ve just seen—as Paul points out in the very next chapter—Christians were going to judge the world. Therefore, all have to develop the ability to judge. No provision is made for a judge class or a lawyer class or a police class. They knew what fornication was. They knew it was wrong. They knew this man was committing it. Therefore, all knew what they were supposed to do. However, they were failing to act. So Paul counseled them—not to look to someone in authority to decide for them, but to take their Christian responsibility upon themselves and rebuke the man as a collective.
In a similar vein, Jesus gave us direction on the exercise of justice when it pertained to personal offenses like fraud or slander.
“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.” (Matthew 18:15-17) [Italics added]
There is nothing here about a committee of three or more older men meeting in secret. No, Jesus says that if the first two steps—taken in confidence, in private—failed, then the congregation gets involved. It is the entire congregation that must render judgment and deal appropriately with the offender.
How could this be accomplished you may say. Wouldn’t that result in chaos? Well, consider that the making of congregation law—legislation—was performed with the involvement of the entire Jerusalem congregation.
”At that the entire multitude became silent… Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation…” (Acts 15:12, 22)
We must trust the power of the spirit. How can it lead us, how can it speak through us as a congregation, if we stifle it with man-made rules and surrender our right to decide to the will of others?
Apostasy and the Exercise of Justice
How are we to exercise justice when dealing with apostasy? Here are three commonly cited scriptures. As you read them, ask yourself, “To whom is this counsel directed?”
“As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; 11 knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned. “ (Titus 3:10, 11)
“But now I am writing YOU 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)
“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. 10 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)
Is this counsel directed to a judicial class within the congregation? Of is it directed to all Christians? There is no indication that the counsel to “reject him”, or to “quit mixing in company” with him, or to “never receive him” or “say a greeting to him” is achieved by waiting for someone in authority over us to tell us what to do. This direction is intended for all mature Christians whose “perceptive powers [have been trained] to distinguish both right and wrong. (Heb. 5:14)
We know what a fornicator or an idolater or a drunkard or a prompter of sects or an teacher of apostate ideas is and how he acts. His conduct speaks for itself. Once we know these things, we will obediently cease associating with him.
In summary, the exercise of justice under both the Mosaic law and the law of the Christ is done openly and publicly, and it requires all involved to make a personal determination and act accordingly.
The Exercise of Justice in Christian Nations
The record of the nations of the world is far from untarnished with regard to the righteous exercise of justice. Still, the belief in the Bible and the influence of Christ’s law has provided many legal safeguards in nations professing Christianity against the abuse of power by those in authority. Certainly, we all acknowledge the protection afforded us by the legal right to a fair and impartial public hearing before one’s peers. We acknowledge the justice in allowing a man to face his accusers with the right to cross-examine them. (Pro. 18:17) We acknowledge the right for a man to prepare a defense and to know fully what charges are being brought against him without being blindsided by concealed attacks. This is part of the process called “discovery”.
It is clear that anyone in a civilized land would quickly condemn a secret trial where a man is denied the right to know all the charges and witnesses against him until the moment of the trial. We would likewise condemn any trail where a man is not given time to prepare a defense, to gather witnesses on his behalf, to have friends and advisors to both observe and counsel and to bear witness as to the legality and fairness of the proceedings. We would consider such a court and legal system to be draconian, and would expect to find it in a land ruled by a tin pot dictator where citizens have no rights. Such a justice system would be anathema to the civilized man; having more to do with lawlessness than law.
Speaking of lawlessness….
The Exercise of Justice Under the Man of Lawlessness
Unfortunately, such a lawless system of justice is not uncommon in history. It existed in Jesus` day. There was already a man of lawlessness at work then. Jesus referred to the scribes and Pharisees as men “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness”. (Mat. 23:28) These men who prided themselves on upholding the law were quick to abuse it when it suited the purpose of protecting their position and authority. They hauled Jesus off at night without a formal accusation, nor the chance to prepare a defense, nor the opportunity to present witnesses in his behalf. They judged him in secret and condemned him in secret, then brought him before the people using the weight of their authority to persuade the people to join in the condemnation of the righteous one.
Why did the Pharisees judge Jesus secretly? Simply put, because they were children of darkness and the darkness cannot survive the light.
“Jesus then said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and older men that had come there for him: “Did YOU come out with swords and clubs as against a robber? 53 While I was with YOU in the temple day after day YOU did not stretch out YOUR hands against me. But this is YOUR hour and the authority of darkness.” (Luke 22:52, 53)
Truth was not on their side. They could find no pretext in God’s law to condemn Jesus, so they had to invent one; one that wouldn’t stand the light of day. The secrecy would allow them to judge and condemn, then present a fait accompli to the public. They would denounce him before the people; label him a blasphemer and use the weight of their authority and the punishment they could wield on dissenters to win the support of the people.
Sadly, the man of lawlessness did not pass away with the destruction of Jerusalem and of the judicial system that condemned the Christ. It was prophesied that after the death of the apostles, the “man of lawlessness” and the “son of destruction” would again assert himself, this time within the Christian Congregation. Like the Pharisees before him, this metaphorical man ignored the proper exercise of justice as laid down in the Holy Scriptures.
For centuries, secret trials have been used in Christendom to protect the power and authority of Church leaders and to quell independent thinking and the exercise of Christian Freedom; even down to prohibiting the reading of the Bible. We may think of the Spanish Inquisition, but it is only one of the more notorious examples of a centuries-long abuse of power.
What Characterizes a Secret Trial?
A secret trial is a trial that goes beyond merely excluding the public. To work best, the public should not even be aware there is such a trial. Secret trials are noted for not keeping a written record of the proceedings. If a record is kept, it is kept secret and never released to the public. Often there is no indictment, the accused is usually denied counsel and representation. Often the accused it given little or no warning prior to the trial and is unaware of the evidence against him until confronted with it in court. Thus he is blindsided by the weight and nature of the accusations and kept off balance so as not to be able to mount a credible defense.
The term, Star Chamber, has come to represent the concept of a secret court or trial. This is a court which is accountable to no one and which is used to suppress dissent.
The Exercise of Justice in the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Given that there is ample evidence in Scripture on how judicial matters are to be handled, and given that these Bible principles have guided even worldly lawmakers in setting up modern systems of jurisprudence, it would be expected that Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim to be the only true Christians, would exhibit the world’s highest standard of scriptural justice. We would expect the people who proudly bear Jehovah’s name to be a shining example to all in Christendom of the proper, godly exercise of justice.
With that in mind, let’s examine some of the direction given to congregation elders when judicial matters are to be undertaken. This information comes from a book given only to elders, titled Shepherd the Flock of God. We will be quoting from this book using its symbol, ks10-E.[ii]
When there is a grave sin, such as fornication, idolatry, or apostasy, a judicial proceeding is called for. A committee of three elders[iii] is formed.
No announcement of any kind is made that there is to be a hearing. Only the accused is notified and invited to attend. From ks10-E p. 82-84 we have the following:
[all italics and boldface taken from ks book. Highlights in red added.]
6. It is best for two elders to invite him orally.
7. If circumstance permit, hold the hearing at the Kingdom hall. This theocratic setting will put all in a more respectful frame of mind; it will also help to ensure greater confidentiality for the proceedings.
12. If the accused is a married brother, his wife would normally not attend the hearing. However, if the husband wants his wife to be present, she may attend a portion of the hearing. The judicial committee should maintain confidentiality.
14. …However, if the accused living in his parent’s home has recently become an adult and the parents ask to be present and the accused has no objection, the judicial committee may decide to allow them to attend a portion of the hearing.
18. If a member of the media or an attorney representing the accused contacts the elders, they should not give him any information about the case or verify that there is a judicial committee. Rather, they should give the following explanation: “The spiritual and physical welfare of Jehovah’s Witnesses is of paramount concern to the elders, who have been appointed to ‘shepherd the flock.’ The elders extend this shepherding confidentially. Confidential shepherding makes it easier for those who seek the elders’ help to do so without worrying that what they say to the elders will be divulged later. Consequently, we do not comment on whether elders are currently or have formerly met to assist any member of the congregation.”
From the above, it is made to appear that the only reason for maintaining confidentiality is to protect the privacy of the accused. However, if that were the case, why would the elders refuse to admit even the existence of a judicial committee to an attorney representing the accused. Clearly the attorney has attorney/client privilege and is being asked by the accused to gather information. How are the elders protecting the confidentiality of the accused in a case where the accused is the one making the inquiry?
You will also notice that even when others are allowed to attend it is only when there are special circumstances, such as a husband asking his wife to be present or the parents of a child still living at home. Even in these circumstance, the observers are only allowed to attend a portion of the hearing and even that is done at the discretion of the elders.
If confidentiality is to protect the rights of the accused, what about his right to waive confidentiality? If the accused wishes others present, should that not be his decision to make? To deny access to others indicates that it is the confidentiality or privacy of the elders which is really being protected. As proof of this statement, consider this from ks10-E p. 90:
3. Hear only those witnesses who have relevant testimony regarding the alleged wrongdoing. Those who intend to testify only about the character of the accused should not be allowed to do so. The witnesses should not hear details and testimony of other witnesses. Observers should not be present for moral support. Recording devices should not be allowed.
Everything that is said in a worldly court of law is recorded.[iv] The public can attend. Friends can attend. Everything is open and above board. Why is this not so in the congregation of those bearing Jehovah’s name and claiming to be the only true Christians left on earth. Why is the exercise of justice in Caesar’s courts of a higher order than in our own?
Do We Engage in Star Chamber Justice?
The majority of judicial cases involve sexual immorality. There is a clear scriptural need to keep the congregation clean of individuals who unrepentantly engage in sexual immorality. Some may even be sexual predators, and the elders have a responsibility to protect the flock. What is being challenged here is not the right nor duty of the congregation to exercise justice, but the way it is carried out. For Jehovah, and therefore for his people, the end can never justify the means. Both the end and the means must be holy, because Jehovah is holy. (1 Peter 1:14)
There is a time when confidentiality is preferred—is a loving provision even. A man who confesses a sin may not want others to know about it. He may benefit from the assistance of elders who can counsel him in private and help him back on the course to righteousness.
However, what if there is a case where the accused feels he is being abused by those in power or misjudged by some in authority who might have a grudge against him? In such a case, confidentiality becomes a weapon. The accused should have the right to a public trial if he wishes it. There is no basis for extending the protection of confidentiality to those who sit in judgment. There is no provision in holy Scripture for protecting the privacy of those sitting in judgment. Quite the opposite. As Insight on the Scriptures states, “…the publicity that would be afforded any trial at the gate [i.e., in public] would tend to influence the judges toward care and justice in the trial proceedings and in their decisions.” (it-1 p. 518)
The abuse of our system becomes evident when dealing with individuals who tend to hold a view that differs from that of the Governing Body on scriptural interpretation. For example, there have been cases—some now famous among Jehovah’s Witnesses—of individuals who came to believe that Christ’s presence in 1914 is a false teaching. These individuals shared this understanding privately with friends, but did not make is widely known nor did they go about prompting their own belief among the brotherhood. Still, this was viewed as apostasy.
A public hearing where all could attend would require that the committee present scriptural proof that the “apostate” was wrong. After all, the Bible commands us to “reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin…” (1 Timothy 5:20) Reprove means to “prove again”. However, a committee of elders would not want to be in a position where they had to “prove again” a teaching like 1914 before all onlookers. Like the Pharisees that secretly arrested and tried Jesus, their position would be tenuous and would not hold up well to public scrutiny. So the solution is to hold a secret hearing, deny the accused any observers, and deny him the right to a reasoned scriptural defense. The only thing the elders want to know in cases like this is whether or not the accused is willing to recant. They are not there to argue the point nor to reprove him, because frankly, they can’t.
If the accused refuses to recant because he feels to do so would be to deny the truth and therefore views the matter as a question of personal integrity, the committee will disfellowship. What follows will come as a surprise to the congregation which will be unaware of the goings-on. A simple announcement will be made that “Brother so-and-so is no longer a member of the Christian congregation.” The brothers will not know why and will not be permitted to inquire on the grounds of confidentiality. Like the crowds that condemned Jesus, these faithful Witnesses will only be allowed to believe that they are doing God’s will by complying with the direction of the local elders and will cut off all association with the “wrongdoer.” If they do not do so, they will be hauled in to a secret trial of their own and their names may be the next ones read out at the Service Meeting.
This is precisely how and why secret tribunals are used. They become a means for an authority structure or hierarchy to preserve its hold over people.
Our official means of exercising justice—all these rules and proceedings—do not originate from the Bible. There is not a single scripture that supports our complex judicial process. All of this comes from direction that is kept secret from the rank and file and which originates from the Governing Body. Despite this, we have the temerity to make this claim in our current study issue of The Watchtower:
“The only authority that Christian overseers have comes from the Scriptures.” (w13 11/15 p. 28 par. 12)
How Will You Exercise Justice?
Let us imagine being back in Samuel’s day. You have been standing at the city gate enjoying the day when a group of city elders approaches dragging a woman with them. One of them stands up and proclaims that they have judged this woman and found she has committed a sin and must be stoned.
“When did this judgment take place?” you ask. “I have been here all day and have seen no judicial case presented.”
They reply, “It was done last night in secret for reasons of confidentiality. This is now the direction God is giving us.”
“But what crime has this woman committed?” you ask.
“That is not for you to know”, comes the reply.
Astonished at this remark, you ask, “But what is the evidence against her? Where are the witnesses?”
They answer, “For reasons of confidentiality, to protect the privacy rights of this woman, we are not allowed to tell you that.”
Just then, the woman speaks up. “That’s okay. I want them to know. I want them to hear everything, because I am innocent.”
“How dare you”, the elders say rebukingly. “You have no right to speak anymore. You must be silent. You have been judged by those whom Jehovah has appointed.”
Then they turn to the crowd and declare, “We are not allowed to tell you more for reasons of confidentiality. This is for the protection of all. This is for the protection of the accused. It is a loving provision. Now everyone, pick up stones and kill this woman.”
“I will not!” you cry out. “Not until I hear for myself what she has done.”
At that they turn their gaze on you, and proclaim, “If you do not obey those whom God has appointed to shepherd you and protect you, then you are rebellious and causing division and disunity. You will also be taken into our secret court and judged. Obey, or you will share the fate of this woman!”
What would you do?
Make no mistake. This is a test of integrity. This is one of those defining moments in life. You were simply minding your own business, enjoying the day, when suddenly you are being called upon to kill someone. Now you are in a life-and-death situation yourself. Obey the men and kill the woman, possibly condemning yourself to death by God in retribution, or refrain from participating and suffer the same fate as she. You might reason, Maybe they are right. For all I know the woman is an idolater or a spirit medium. Then again, maybe she really is innocent.
What would you do? Would you put your trust in nobles and the son of earthling man,[v] or would you recognize that the men had not followed Jehovah’s law in the way they exercised their brand of justice, and therefore, you could not obey them without enabling them in a disobedient course of action? Whether the end result was just or not, you could not know. But you would know that the means to that end followed a course of disobedience to Jehovah, so any fruit produced would be fruit of the poisonous tree, so to speak.
Bring this little drama forward to the present day and it is an accurate description of how we handle judicial matters in the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a modern Christian, you would never allow yourself to be persuaded to kill someone. However, is physically killing someone worse than killing them spiritually? Is it worse to kill the body or to kill the soul? (Matthew 10:28)
Jesus was lawlessly disfellowshipped and the crowd, stirred up by the scribes and Pharisees and older men in authority, shouted for his death. Because they obeyed men, they were blood guilty. They needed to repent to be saved. (Acts 2:37,38) There are those who should be disfellowshipped—no question. However, many have been wrongly disfellowshipped and some have stumbled and lost their faith because of the abuse of power. A millstone awaits the unrepentant abuser. (Matthew 18:6) When the day comes that we have to stand before our Maker, do you think he’ll buy the excuse, “I was just following orders?”
Some who read this will think I am calling for rebellion. I am not. I am calling for obedience. We must obey God as ruler rather than men. (Acts 5:29) If obeying God means rebelling against men, then where are the T-shirts. I’ll buy me a dozen.
In Summary
It is clear from the foregoing that when it comes to the first of the three requirements Jehovah asks of us as revealed through the prophet Micah—to exercise justice—we, the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, have fallen far short of God’s righteous standard.
What about the other two requirements Micah spoke of, ‘to love kindness’ and ‘to be modest in walking with our God’. We will examine how these impact the issue of disfellowshipping in a future post.
To view the next article in this series, click here.
[i] I will not presume to say that we have the complete law for humans. Only that the law of the Christ is the best law for us under the present system of things, given that he has made allowances for our imperfect human nature. Whether the law will be expanded once humans are sinless is a question for another time.
[ii] Some have referred to this book as a secret book. The Organization counters that like any institution, it has a right to its confidential correspondence. That is true, but we are not talking about internal business processes and policies. We are talking about law. Secret laws and secret law books have no place in a civilized society; especially do they have no place in a religion based on the public law of God made available to all mankind in his Word, the Bible.
[iii] Four or five may be needed for unusually difficult or complicated cases, though these are quite rare.
[iv] We have learned much about the inner workings of our Organization from public transcripts of trials involving high ranking officials whose testimony was given under oath and is part of the public record. (Mark 4:21, 22)
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Sargon on 2014-01-09 17:46:17
Excellent, excellent ,excellent! I would like to add a few more points. I feel like the judicial committee process also prevents erring but repentant ones from seeking necessary help. As the reader of hearts Jesus has never given humans authority to gauge repentance. That is why at Matthew 18:21-35 and Luke 17:3,4 we are instructed to reprove and forgive our brothers who err, if they ask for forgiveness. We are never told to make our brothers prove their forgiveness through works, as any cunning wicked person can make a display of false penance. James 5:14-16 also instructs elders to help those who are spiritually sick. This inspired counsel means that if someone comes to the elders for help, the elders should assist them lovingly. The scripture does not say, 'Go to the older men, so that they may form a judicial committee to determine if you are really sorry.' Jesus knows the sinful nature of humans. That is why elders should be there to lovingly assist those who may have fallen deep into the pit of sin, but who want to be restored to spiritual health.
Based on Matt chapter 18 and the account in 1 Corinthians, I believe disfellowshipping is reserved for those who stubbornly work against the leading of God's spirit by persisting in a wicked course and not listening to the congregation. Of course, if such ones abandon their wicked ways, they should be re-admitted to the congregation without delay (see also prodigal son). I also believe that this means persons should not be disfellowshipped for past sins they are no longer practicing. (i.e. an adult married person awaiting formal reinstatement for fornication committed years ago as a teenager)Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-09 21:51:29
Excellent points, Sargon. I agree with every one of them. There is also the issue of automatic disfellowshipping which I plan to discuss in the next post.
Comment by Sargon on 2014-01-09 17:54:09
I also am very strongly against disfellowshipping for blood transfusions. I believe it is a conscience matter. It is also not listed as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians chapter 5. Unless we can be 100% sure that god disapproves of it, we shouldn't disfellowship people base on our interpretaion. It's funny how "new light" must always shed on things that are subject to the changing interpretations of men (organ transplants, blood fractions) and not based on the unchanging clear words of God.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-09 21:52:16
You are quite right.
Comment by A searcher for truth on 2014-01-09 18:58:38
Good article and incidentally this is what the Watchtower Society had to say about the practice of disfellowshiping otherwise known as excommunicating.
Please click on link below for this information.
http://imgur.com/a/0D6XF
Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-09 19:14:00
I read this with tears swelling in my eyes.This article is well written. Meleti I don't see how anyone could refute the logical and scriptural information that you have set forth. I really wish that GB would read what you have written. They are spiritual men are they not?
Their guidelines are ever changing. Do they retroactively reinstate disfellowshipped ones who took an human organ transplant or blood fractions? Also, their definition of apostasy is not in any way scriptural. I wholeheartedly agree with you Sargon regarding the process of reinstatement .There are so many layers to this topic........
Comment by peely on 2014-01-09 22:16:58
So well written and one to keep on file!
Just a few scriptures crossed my mind concerning your comments:
"Our official means of exercising justice—all these rules and proceedings—do not originate from the Bible." -
Romans 14:4,12 – “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.”
"As a modern Christian, you would never allow yourself to be persuaded to kill someone. However, is physically killing someone worse than killing them
spiritually?" -
John 16:2 – “They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.”
Mark 13:9,12,13,22 - “But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. 12 Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 13 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 22 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Guess we had better ask ourselves; does this refer to events when joining the organization, or rather leaving as a disfellowshipped one?
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-09 23:34:49
An excellent question, that last one. I daresay the Organization often acts like the religious leaders of Jesus' day who opposed the disciples reasoning that they were God's Organization from ancient times.
Thanks for sharing those scriptures. They add to the discussion.
Comment by Rob Crompton on 2014-01-10 05:09:02
I find it very encouraging that these issues are being discussed among people within the WT movment - keep it up! On the matter of disfellowshipping and shunning I would want to ask what you will do having examined the doctrinal basis of WT practice. What will now be your own personal practice: within you families? withing your circles of friends? within your congregations?
Reply by Joel on 2014-01-15 09:42:03
My own personal view is this: it depends on the circumstances surrounding the disfellowshipping. I know of some who have been disfellowshipped and knowing the "offense" if they were in my congregation I would shake their hand in front of everyone just to show solidarity. I know of others who, when knowing what they have done, I really do not want to be involved with. My own experience with families tells me that rarely, if ever, do many family members practice anything resembling shunning - only the most stalwart would do so. Again, it is not for me to judge, it depends on what the circumstances are.
I don't know if that answers your question? I'm not sure if you are asking whether disfellowshipping is without basis, or you just query some of the organisations practices?
Comment by Joel on 2014-01-10 06:13:53
Excellent post and I think you capture a balanced view with your question: "Could they both be right?"
There are obviously circumstances in which someones conduct requires the congregation to keep itself clean, the example given being "such fornication as is not even among the nations". A passage of scripture that comes to my mind is the messages to the congregations contained in Revelation 2. I'm not focusing on the overall messages, but specific verses such as:
"6 but this thou hast, that thou dost hate the works of the Nicolaitans, that I also hate."
"15 so hast thou, even thou, those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans -- which thing I hate."
"20 `But I have against thee a few things: That thou dost suffer the woman Jezebel, who is calling herself a prophetess, to teach, and to lead astray, my servants to commit whoredom, and idol-sacrifices to eat;
21 and I did give to her a time that she might reform from her whoredom, and she did not reform;"
Clearly, Jesus states that although the individuals are accountable, the congregation also has a responsibility to keep itself clean.
There are many many people who just do not like to accept that there are consequences for wrong actions. The issue for the congregation, is what scope of unrepentant sinfulness falls into a category where the congregation must act? Sexual deviance is clearly one such category, although the scriptures seem to indicate that an awful lot of bad things were tolerated up to a point.
That said, how does this support the system of law enforced by the organization of Jehovahs Witnesses? I’ll not go into much detail but I have seen some situations go undealt with because some clause allows and then other brothers who feel they have done something wrong, persecuted and disfellowshipped when they were actually in the process of seeking help. It is a disgrace.
Comment by AFRICAINE on 2014-01-10 06:31:13
Just read the post on the first run through - I will end up reading it many times - and "behold I sweateth much !" Mind you it is about 27 deg C in my town today.
We are casting stones at our very own spiritual family. And the collateral damage is huge.
And then I reflect on the JC's that I sat on and I shiver. And like a man who has taken life in a theatre of war I go through constant playbacks of the cases - did I cast the stone in haste. Especially when I reflect on my own ignorance of matters - eg abuse cases - we know squat as elders. These matters require expert help/interventions and over many months or more.
One "victim" "on trial" for immorality was the victim of years of abuse by a family member. She was Bi-Polar and promiscuous due to her psychological background. But the former CO/DO sitting on the case would not even consider that as being extenuating in any way. Drop the axe - cast the stone !Reply by on 2014-01-10 10:50:22
In the early 1990's there were some high-profile cases where judicial committees brought in psychiatric professionals, who put forward the argument that the split-personality of the schizophrenic (literally split-mind but now called bi-polar) meant the committee was not dealing with the same "person" who committed the bad behavior.
In other words, the pathway to perceive repentance was blocked by the dis-order. A special elder school was held, as I recall it in late 1993, to prohibit this type of decision, or admission of mental-health professionals to the judicial proceeding.
So alcoholics were responsible for their drunken acts, regardless of its disease status. Likewise, bi-polar deviants were responsible for both sides of their brain. Homosexuals were straight deviants (excuse that pun), and the secret child-molesters, well they were excused for lack of two witnesses.
Jesus approach to most of this under the law is summed up in his words,"Go and
sin no more." (John 8:2-11 of questionable canonicity - not included in New NWT) It is worth noting who reportedly brought up the issue of adultery to Jesus:
(John 8:3) 3 Now the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught at adultery. . .
Comment by Samaritan Woman on 2014-01-10 08:30:09
The disfellowshipping arrangement has always been a source of internal conflict for me. I feel like on one hand it is justified but on the other it’s completely cruel. What bothers me is specifically related to those disfellowshipped because of a difference in belief either through study or lack of faith.
After Jesus was resurrected, the apostle Thomas said he would not believe unless he saw the holes in Jesus hand. Jesus did not take him aside and ask do you have faith, he gave proof that he was resurrected and that he was the Christ. I do not think Thomas doubted, I think he wanted proof and since Jesus is truth, he had no reason to feel that Thomas undermined his authority. Christians like ones on the site are many times asking for the same thing. Proof.
I had a discussion once with a sister who saw me speaking to a disfellowshipped person in line for coffee at a shop near my job, she asked about the persons status and as a reply I asked if it was only the elders’ job to encourage disfellowshipped one or if we all have the responsibility and gave her the following scriptures:
James 5:19,20 “My brothers, if anyone among you is led astray from the truth and another turns him back, know that whoever turns a sinner back from the error of his way will save him from death and will cover a multitude of sins” and
Luke 15:7-“ I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents+ than over 99 righteous ones who have no need of repentance.”
Proverbs 3: 27-28 Do not withhold good from those to whom you should give it If it is within your power to help Do not say to your neighbor, “Go away; come back later! I will give it to you tomorrow,” If you can give it now.”
Her reply was standard, that we should “remove the person from us and not even speak a greeting”. You mentioned the judges hearing cases at the gate of the city to ensure justice and mercy when appropriate; the problem is that the Governing Body or powers that be are more concerned with maintaining what they have. Should the apostasy cases be heard at the “gates of the city” there would be a major shift in thinking so keeping the practice of not speaking to disfellowshipped ones keeps people in fear, not of God but of man. The one thought that keeps reverberating in my mind, besides the scripture that you used to begin this post is that God wants mercy not sacrifice , so why are we sacrificing people for the sake of someone else’s’ power?
Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-10 09:10:23
Meleti
I have nothing substantial to add except agreement, and my personal thanks for your time to create such a thought provoking article. Anything I might say from personal experience would be a little too revealing, but I can only testify to the veracity of what has been written in the article and in many of the comments.
It got me wondering about the whole picture from Rutherford's day. There was no formal disfellowshipping back then, and yet he kicked a few people to the kerb. There was almost nothing written in the literature about sexual immorality. What actually happened back then when someone was known to have behaved in a manner unfit for a Christian, and did nothing to show repentance? Perhaps there is some reader out there who might know the answer to this, since I don't think we'll find anything in the publications. Would it have been that the congregation just automatically rejected such a person? If so, what measures might have been in place to prevent false stories leading to defamation of character without due cause?
From a human standpoint there are pros and cons to our current methods. But such a system allows for and even encourages collateral damage for the sake of the “greater good” - the preservation of the organization. I don't think that there is an elder out there who in his heart of hearts could not acknowledge the truth of that. But Jesus Christ would never accept collateral damage. He would leave the 99 and recover the single lost sheep (Matt 18:12-14). He would never “quarantine” a sheep just to be on the safe side.
That is why doing things from a human standpoint is dangerous and wrong when such clear principles are given to us in scripture, and your article has very forcefully exposed that.
I very much look forward to the follow up articles.
ApollosReply by miken on 2014-01-10 13:21:01
"What actually happened back then when someone was known to have behaved in a manner unfit for a Christian, and did nothing to show repentance"?
The case of the dismissal and disfellowshipping of the unrepentant Canadian branch manager Walter Salter in 1937 demonstrates how the local congregation ( Toronto Company of Jehovah's Witnesses) as a whole was involved. The account of the congregation meeting and the resolution they passed disfellowshipping Salter was printed in the May 15, Watchtower 1937 pages 159-160. P. Chapman, who replaced Salter as the Canadian branch manager, in his following letter praises Rutherford in glowing terms followed by a letter of support from the Toronto company. No hint of a group at Brooklyn who were forerunners of the current governing body.
Free download of the 1937 Watchtowers is available from
http://wtarchive.svhelden.info/english/zions-watch-tower/Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-10 13:29:11
Yes, that's why I tried to draw a distinction between Rutherford's political moves, and what would have happened in the regular "rank and file" misdemeanors that take place.
Comment by BeenMislead on 2014-01-10 10:32:10
Excellent, excellent article Meleti !!!
It really shows how un-scriptural the “Star Chamber” Judicial Committee process is. And the real reasons behind the secrecy.
I especially liked the imagined Samuel’s day narrative. It shows how we are told/ordered to spiritually stone someone without proof of quilt or be spiritually stoned ourselves.
---------------------------------------------------
Here is what it says in part on jw.org about shunning ...
“What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.”
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/
Really?
“normal family affections and dealings continue”
We are told to severely shun them per the organizations instructions. The website is NOT painting a honest picture of what the Watchtower has told us to do!!
Here are two recent examples: (there are many more older ones)
“What if we have a relative or a close friend who is disfellowshipped? Now our loyalty is on the line, not to that person, but to God. Jehovah is watching us to see whether we will abide by his command not to have contact with anyone who is disfellowshipped.—Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.” – (w12 4/15, Betrayal—An Ominous Sign of the Times!, Page 12)
“Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else—including the family bond. So to cope with the situation, be sure to maintain your own spirituality. Do not isolate yourself from your faithful Christian brothers and sisters. (Prov. 18:1) Pour out your feelings to Jehovah in prayer. (Ps. 62:7, 8) Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail.” – (w13 1/15, Let Nothing Distance You From Jehovah, Page 16)
Do the above quotes from the Watchtower sound like “normal family affections and dealings continue” to you?
The Frequently Asked Questions on their website is mostly for the public. And their deception makes me angry !Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-10 10:57:35
It makes me angry as well. What it demonstrates is our willingness to engage in what the politicians call "spin" which is just a euphemism for deceit.
They say, "We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin." The fact is, sometimes we do, and I want to discuss that in the next post.
They say, "Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned." This is true, but it doesn't answer the question. "Spin!" The question asks about former members, not drifters. A former member is one who has resigned from membership and the plain truth is, "Yes, we do shun them."
We love to say we "have the truth" or we are "in the truth", but such dissembling is more befitting of the "ministers of righteousness" Paul spoke of to the Corinthians than the courageous candor of Jesus' disciples. If we believe our course of action is righteous, then we should tell it like it is and admit we shun former members and take the consequences, not hide behind intentionally misleading statements.
I really appreciate the reasoning and scriptures you and others commenting on this post have brought to the discussion. I would like to include them in the follow-up post.
Thank you all.Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-10 19:03:46
Just to add to that thought, here is another published quote where in many cases there is a gap between what is in print and what occurs in practice. I am sure you will cover this in more detail when you address the issue of "[no] automatic disfellowshipping". The assurance given in this statement (highlighted by me in bold) is most definitely not to be trusted:
Some individuals stop preaching and attending meetings because they have committed a serious sin. They may feel that if they confess their wrongdoing to the elders, they will be disfellowshipped. But they will not be expelled from the congregation if they have discontinued the unscriptural practice and are genuinely repentant. (2 Cor. 7:10, 11) Instead, they will be welcomed back, and the elders will give them the spiritual help they need. (w08 11/15 p. 14 par. 12 Help Them Return Without Delay!)Reply by GodWordIsTruth on 2014-01-10 21:31:58
I can't believe it says that! That is so far from the case.
Reply by Joel on 2014-01-13 06:44:43
To the bit you highlighted, I think they had better tell the CO's and elders, because that is definitely not what happens.
Comment by anderestimme on 2014-01-10 18:21:31
The funny thing is that the secrecy of the hearings can even be used against the judges. After all, the family and friends of the disfellowshipped can tell any story they like and the elders can't defend themselves against the accusations without violating confidentiality. Does a practice whereby judges and accused alike are vulnerable to injustice sound like something that originated with a supremely wise god?
Comment by anderestimme on 2014-01-12 16:45:29
A related issue worth mentioning is child baptism, which makes minors subject to congregation judicial action even when they are still under the care of their parents. I wonder how many Witness parents realize that when they let their minor child get baptized they are agreeing to a potential surrender of parental authority. Of course, Jesus example, which we are supposed to follow closely, was to get baptized at 30. That may not be justification for a minimum age, but it certainly should give parents something to think about before encouraging their minor children to get dunked.
Reply by Joel on 2014-01-12 19:10:00
All good points. In a way I am happy that I did get baptised at 15. Getting baptised as a Christian is definitely no mistake. I think I did the right thing and if I was now still unbaptised when would I have the bottle to go ahead and where would I go to do so? I honestly have no idea! I certainly wouldn't make it through the baptism questions now to "qualify" as a witness that is for sure, not if I were answering honestly, which of course I would.
I think sometimes there is direct pressure on young people "you need to get baptised" and then there is the indirect kind. I certainly remember comments like "not long now, can't be protected by parents forever" etc.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-13 10:30:04
Oh so very true!
Comment by miken on 2014-01-13 12:37:47
Excellent article Meleti. Here are a few more thoughts some of which you may well cover in your next articles.
Few JW's know this but the position as indicated in the Shepherd the Flock of God Book with regard to association with disfellowshipped or disassociated RELATIVES who are NOT living with family members is that any RELATIVES who choose to continue associating, to quote, "would NOT be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent SPIRITUAL association or he openly criticizes the disfellowshipping decision", (section number 6, page 116). Although elders are advised to discourage such association the bottom line is as quoted, although those who choose to continue association may loose any congregational privilages they may have. This reflects what was stated in the 1991 Elders book Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All The Flock. To quote from page 103 of this publication, "Normally, a CLOSE RELATIVE would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is SPIRITUAL association or an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course". However in the 2010 Shepherd the Flock of God book the standard position with regard to association with disfellowshipped or disassociated NON RELATIVES is continued. To quote from page 60 under the heading Brazen conduct, loose conduct 10, " Wilful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped NON RELATIVES despite repeated counsel" constitutes Brazen Conduct which can lead to judicial action by the elders. Of course there is no scriptural evidence for a distinction between the treatment of disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives or non relatives. Despite the sections quoted above from the two elders only publications we are told (as already quoted) to shun disfelowshipped (or disassociated) FAMILY MEMBERS NOT living under our roof, see Watchtower Study Edition July 15, 2011, pp31-32.
We appeal to 1 Cor 5 as a basis for disfellowshipping, however what did Paul mean in verses 9 and 11 when he advised "quit MIXING in company.....", did he mean totally cutting off all communication? The Greek word Paul uses is 'sunanamignumi', to mix together (Strong 4874), which means, as some interlinears render it, 'associate intimately', Thayer has "to keep company with, be intimate with", there is no hint that there should be no communication at all. Further at 2 Thess 3:14,15 the NWT translates the same Greek word "stop ASSOCIATING with him" yet in verse 15 "continue ADMONISHING him as a brother". Clearly we do not stop speaking to those who are 'marked' but it is a personal decision how much we reduce the amount of social contact we have in line with 1 Cor 5:9 and 11.
What verse of the Bible do we cite to explain why we won’t even say hello to a disfellowshipped or disassociated one, even if that one belongs to their own family?
The verses can be found in the 2nd letter of the apostle John;
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.
We point, with confidence, to the last few words of verse 10, “never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” This, we say, is why we won’t have fellowship or even say hello to disfellowshipped or disassociated ones.
Would it be considered splitting hairs to wish to bring into effect the context of John’s words in verses 10 and 11 of his letter? Any reasonable person would surely wish to make sure of all things, and to hold fast to fine, scriptural teachings by being clear on who John was referring to and what he meant by the word ‘greeting’. Especially so when you consider the devastating effects of not speaking to those even in one’s own family who may be disfellowshipped or disassociated.
Firstly, what does the context in John’s 2nd letter say about the identity of those to whom Christians should never say a greeting to?
The Bible is inspired, and we can be confident that our Father wanted to make sure John conveyed accurately what would be pleasing or displeasing to Him, and what would be harmful or beneficial to us. Therefore, we see from the context;
For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
By the time John wrote this letter, towards the end of the first century, Gnostic deceivers were gaining prominence, trying to influence Christians with their belief that Jesus Christ was not who Christians believed him to be. More can be read about this topic in Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, a reference work the Watch Tower Society has referred to previously. Clearly, from a Christian point of view, these deceivers were spreading evil lies about the Messiah and Saviour, and John quite rightly describes them as the antichrist. These ones literally denied Christ.
It would appear that some Christians had allowed themselves to be influenced by Gnostic teachings;
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.
John doesn’t mince his words. Anyone who had departed from the teaching of the Christ (see 1 Cor 2:1,2) - a simple teaching or gospel about Christ’s death and resurrection bringing salvation to the whole human race - had departed from God and did not have Jehovah or Jesus.
Therefore, it was these such ones - deceivers and antichrists - that John was referring to in verses 10 and 11. He instructed that Christians should not welcome such ones into their homes (where their Christian gatherings were held) nor even say a greeting to such a one.
Did the language that John here uses imply that Christians should not even say ‘hello’ to the Gnostics or antichrists?
It would be understandable to assume so. Let’s consider, again with a mind keen on accurately understanding Scripture, what John was actually saying.
There are a number of words in the Greek language which can be translated as ‘greeting’. John in his letter uses the word khairo. It is of use to compare how several different translations of this verse render this particular Greek word into English. Another word John could have used is aspazomai, this too could have been rendered in English as ‘greeting’.
So, there are two separate words being discussed, both of them Greek, both of them capable of being translated ‘greeting’. Greek, though, is a wonderfully colourful language and both of these words having a deeper, more rounded out meaning than just ‘greeting’. Here’s what the Watchtower magazine of May 15, 1988, page 27 has to say;
John here used khai’ro, which was a greeting like “good day” or “hello.” (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9) He did not use aspa’zomai (as in verse 13), which means “to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome” and may have implied a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) So the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even “hello” to such ones.
With a spirit of wishing to make sure of all things, let’s compare what was printed in this Watchtower article with the definition given to each of these Greek words in Strong’s Concordance;
chairo {khah’-ee-ro} 1) to rejoice, be glad 2) to rejoice exceedingly 3) to be well, thrive 4) in salutations, hail! 5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute
aspasmos {as-pas-mos’} 1) a salutation, either oral or written
John used the first of these 2 words, khairo. What does this word mean, according to Strong’s Concordance? It appears to mean more than a simple greeting, as the Watchtower claims. For example, it would involve rejoicing with the person, wishing them well, hailing them. It seems that it doesn’t simply mean saying ‘hello’. If John had wished, under inspiration by Jehovah’s holy spirit, to convey to us that saying a simple ‘hello’ to such a person would make us a sharer in their evil works, he would have used the Greek word aspazomai.
In summary, John’s instruction to never receive these ones into our homes or say a greeting to them was in reference to a distinct group of people; those who had rejected Christ and his resurrection, who had been led to believe - and propagate - teachings that reduced who Christ was and is and were considered deceivers and antichrists. And these ones were not to be hailed, rejoiced with or to be wished well.
Does that even begin to compare, if we’re completely honest, with our current practice of not even saying hello to disfellowshipped or disassociated friends and family members? And why does the Watchtower magazine switch definitions for the Greek words khairo and aspazomai?
Jesus with reference to the joy experienced by "the angels of God" over one sinner that repents gave the illustration of the 'prodigal son'. This younger son was lovingly received by his father (Luke 15:20) even before he had admitted his sin. What a contrast to our process of reinstatement into the congregation. Even though the original disfellowshipping sin is clearly no longer being practiced shunning continues, sometimes for many months, even years, and true repentance is judged by elders, in part, on meeting attendance. Even when reinstated sanctions are still applied with a restriction of congregational privileges for some time. For those disassociated because they disagreed with Watchtower doctrine and or practices they very well may have not have committed any scriptural sin at all. Those that decide to leave to join a Christian group they perceive as living, believing and practicing Christianity more correctly than us will be shunned. It is fine for others to leave their religion and join ours probably without sever repercussions, not so for us. With regard to the hypocritical position the Watchtower Organization takes on changing one's religion, see the Awake July 2009 page 28-29 "The Bible’s Viewpoint, Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?"Reply by anderestimme on 2014-01-14 17:10:52
While I agree with your basic point, it does not appear that the WT 'switched the definitions'. From Strong's:
"Transliteration: aspazomai
Definition: I greet, salute, pay my respects to, welcome.
Luke 10:4 (as a salutation was made not merely by a slight gesture and a few words, but generally by embracing and kissing; to receive joyfully, welcome... Hebrews 11:13."
What does seem clear is that an awful lot of speculation is used to fill in the gaps on the practice of shunning. As a consequence if this practice, those getting baptized basically check into a religion from which they can't check out.
Welcome to Hotel California Christianity.Reply by miken on 2014-01-15 08:34:26
Thanks for the correction. In the Watchtower quotation they acknowledge that regarding not greeting " the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even “hello” to such ones". However the "could" with reference to those either disfellowshipped or disassociated is applied as must with the sole exception of conducting “necessary family business”. Clearly anti-Christian TEACHERS would not be cheerfully or happily greeted (Khairo). It would be extremely rare for any JW to be disfellowshipped for teaching the things John was warning about. The context of 2John has nothing to do with applying a general policy of shunning in the early Christian congregations and everything to do with not supporting specific anti-Christian teachings at that time.
Comment by miken on 2014-01-14 12:29:50
Is the current shunning policy a violation of Human Rights?
See
http://www.change.org/petitions/launch-an-investigation-to-determine-if-jehovah-s-witnesses-have-a-right-to-use-coercion-forms-of-mental-torture-to-force-its-members-not-to-leave?share_id=dUbTkPLqNw&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition
Comment by Samaritan Woman on 2014-01-26 11:00:52
In my experience the reason for going to the elders was based on James 5:13-15 which says, “Is there anyone suffering hardship among you? Let him carry on prayer. Is there anyone in good spirits? Let him sing psalms. Is there anyone sick among you? Let him call the elders of the congregation to him, and let them pray over him, applying oil to him in the name of Jehovah. And the prayer of faith will make the sick one well, and Jehovah will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
I have always assumed this to be the correct way to handle matter of serious sin and therefore complied with the disfellowshipping arrangement, at least as it applied to non-family members. I was struck when reading the remaining verses that instead of being limited to the elders, we as a congregation have the obligation or ability to show love to our brothers.
The same chapter vs. 16 “Therefore, openly confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. A righteous man’s supplication has a powerful effect.”
This does not restrict these actions to the elders, but says to one another. The prayers of elders are not any more righteous than mine or the average publisher. Imagine being able, if we were to commit a serious sin, acknowledging it before one another and gaining the peace of mind and sense of well-being that comes with the forgiveness of your community from knowing that you are not alone in your trials. Instead because this justice is anything but open it gives rise to gossip and feelings of mind crushing guilt.
Again the same chapter vs. 19,20 “My brothers, if anyone among you is led astray from the truth and another turns him back, know that whoever turns a sinner back from the error of his way will save him from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
James clearly is not restricting the giving of counsel or teaching of God’s word to the elders, but to “whoever”. If I am able to encourage a disfellowshipped one to attend meetings, have a bible discussion with them, be there to assure them of God’s love and the power of Jesus forgiveness and sacrifice or just be there to listen, why does that put me in danger of being reproved or worse and losing my family? Jesus said that his followers would be known by the love they have among themselves, how is it loving to disfellowship someone who is truly remorseful and exclude them?
It is the responsibility of Christians, not just elders to assist those who are weak and pray for one another.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-26 11:13:45
I completely agree with your thoughts on this.
James 5:13-15 is one of those scriptures which have been misapplied in an effort to justify a policy that has no support in the Bible. The one who approaches the elders is sick. His purpose in approaching them is to get well. The last sentence, added as a kind of catch-all addendum is "Also, if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven him." The reason he's coming to the elders isn't to confess his sins to a group of men, it's because he's sick and needs to get better.
This is not scriptural support for a judicial system intended to determine repentance!
James is staying, "Oh, and by the way, if during this healing process it turns out that the brother had sinned, not to worry, these sins will be forgiven him." Of course. Doesn't that make sense? The very fact that he has approached the elders recognizing he needs help is evidence of repentance in and of itself.
There is absolutely no scriptural basis for a three-person committee to meet to judge a member of the flock, determine if the necessary degree of repentance is evident and then make a decision on whether or not to allow the brother or sister in question to remain in the flock.
There is also no basis in scripture for us to be required to go to men whenever we have committed a serious sin so that we can confess it and get forgiveness. The Catholics started that process to empower men, and we have reimplemented it, albeit in a modified format.
Comment by Be Modest in Walking with God | Beroean Pickets on 2014-03-11 18:01:42
[…] Modesty (from Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p. 422) [2] For previous installments, see “Exercise Justice” and “Love Kindness”. [3] 2 Peter 3: [4] Jeremiah 10:23 [5] Galatians 6:7 [6] 1 Peter 4: [7] […]
Comment by Organized in Harmony With God’s Own Book | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-01-01 18:03:45
[…] [vi] For a detailed analysis showing how the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses misapplies the Scriptures in handling judicial matters, see the article, Matthew 18 Revisited, or read the whole series starting at Exercising Justice. […]
Comment by Cultivate Self-Control | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-10-22 18:07:54
[…] [i] (John Phillips Commentary Series (27 Vols.)) Grace!” “Peace!” Thus, the early believers wedded the Greek form of greeting (Hail!”) with the Jewish form of greeting (“Peace!”) to make the Christian form of greeting – a reminder that the “middle wall of partition” between Gentile and Jew had been abolished in Christ (Eph. 2:14). Grace is the root from which salvation springs; peace is the fruit that salvation brings. [ii] For a scriptural analysis of the Bible’s counsel regarding disfellowshipping, see the article Exercising Justice. […]