In Defense of Shunning

[Space Merchant]

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Space Merchant seems to have a loving heart and he seems to find good in those that lead the JW Org. SM, I have to disagree with you. In my opinion the Elders are not qualified to do the things they do. Not spiritually qualified, not guided by God's Holy Spirit. The Elders are human, as are we all, and they act in ways that are not in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. The GB and the Elders go 'beyond the things written' just to get things done.

You can disagree with me all you want, Excommunication existed long before JWs ever have walked the earth and no Christian can't refute the fact that it was in practice in ancient times up to modern day and onward.

FACT: Excommunication is an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular receiving of the sacraments.

The ability to excommunicate was given, even entrusted to the church, reasons why the disciples had that ability, as did anyone who hold a position of religious office, even a church leader, while at the same time, anyone of said position can be excommunicated themselves if any grounds have been crossed by means of their own design. Holy Spirit or not, as history proves, excommunication can be issued granted by the fact I noted about and what happens to the person in question who has been excommunicated. In the Jehovah's Witnesses' case, since they do have elders and stewards, perhaps pastors in their church, they do have this ability to remove someone from the church if need be. Another fact is the ability to excommunicate had been given to humans, so they are not in error for putting this in practice since not just the early church practiced it, but the one who is the head of the church issued this practice if you understand the context of Matthew 16.

 

No one is going beyond anything. Excommunication (Disfellowship as they call it) is biblical whereas church ties are cut completely, hence why Expelling prompts the Shunning aka The Shunning Command.

You have to prove how they are going beyond Excommunication practices whereas the practice itself stems from the Bible. Expelling is Biblical.

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Hence when the Elders / Circuit Overseers or others disfellowship a person it may not always be for sinning against God.

True, but it can land in brazen conduct and or actions that is not suitable for a Christian. Excommunication does not always have to be a grave sin against God, it can be something as little as starting a brawl in a church whereas you are the cause, and a list of other things such as using spurious text in a sermon or a talk, you'd be booted out before you can say "praise the Lord".

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It may be because a person is not wanted in a congregation as the Elders do not like that person.

It's not about like, it is about action. A Steward, Elder or Pastor cannot remove someone because of liking someone or not. They use Excommunication should they find something on you that may cause some damage in the church, some however, can be more strict than others.

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Remember that those Elders are ONLY HUMAN.

And your point? Church Disciplinary action was given to humans.

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And they do not have the guidance of God's Holy Spirit that a truly Anointed person would have.

How do you know if you yourself said you wouldn't know anything of the like because you do not know the person?

The Church has been entrusted, and by whom? The Christ, Jesus. You cannot refute this because of who this came to be, but if you want to refute with someone, then Jesus is your guy.

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It is so easy to mention Jesus Christ and the Apostles and the Disciples, and to use them as an example. BUT they were all of the Anointed Heavenly Calling. They had received God's Holy spirit. 

Them and the church were able to excommunicate, hence why Paul made it clear of the roles the men had in the church who had such capabilities.

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It is not possible therefore to compare the GB or the Elders to Christ and His close followers. That gap in comparison is massive. There is in fact no comparison.

Excommunication has not changed. 3 forms exist, only one form came about the early Christian church. I had already linked this information to you and several others a number of times in the past. As I have been vocal about Restorationist Christianity, they only practice the correct form of excommunication, other folks in Christendom has watered it down and or had abandon excommunication whereas the Catholics added something to excommunication that isn't biblical, thus practicing either of the 2 other forms and not adhering to the true form of excommunication.

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Those of the true Anointed whilst on this Earth, would only be human in body. In mind and heart they would be spiritual beings.

Ok, and your point as to why you made mention of this? Excommunication has not changed, nor will it ever be removed from the church. If you want to refute excommunication everything pertaining to church disciplinary action can be brought up if need be. So far, this is something that no one can refute, but rather, will attack, not knowing their own Bible says the same thing.

[Space Merchant]

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Lovely. So now please explain to me in clear plain English WHY 130 people from Honiton Devon England Congregation of JW's, WILL NOT SPEAK TO ME, as i left the JW Org of my own choice, due to the amount of Child Abuse in the Org Earthwide ? 

Well does it have something to do with what you say and do against those of your former faith? And we already know your story, every thread you mention this.

41 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Even a brother that visited me on the evening before the announcement of my being 'No longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses' and had promised to visit me again after six months, has NOT kept his promise. Making himself a liar in my opinion. I had told him and a couple of others exactly what i was intending to do, so he knew full well the situation. 

Well we cannot assume things without knowing the other person's circumstances, what he himself is dealing with, perhaps to some degree greater, who knows. Telling someone something is one thing, but it would have been wise to exchange contact information if you were that concerned about a visit from a member of the faith.

That is like befriending someone and not taking a care for his or her name, not even exchanging contacts to further the relationship.

44 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

i love your use of the Matthew 5 scripture about only loving those loving you etc.... I have this on a piece of paper hanging up close to me , amongst many other scriptures. 

So you are aware of excommunication originating with the Christ?

44 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you really mean this ? A person that speaks out against the GB or the JW org would get disfellowshipped for 'Causing a division within the congregation" (My brother is an Elder and i talked it through with him before I made my decision to leave the Org )

Because if any one from the church community is speaking out, for any faith, and or teaching something that isn't of the church it is a cause of division. Clearly if there is a situation going on, it should be handled and discuss with those in that circle and or those who bear witness to said situation. This is why you have to be wise on speaking up about a matter, granted you are in the UK, your own paid the price for that.

As for the other part, that was a smart approach, a move not many would make. but rather, go for the latter.

47 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What about speaking out against the CHILD ABUSE SITUATION IN THE JW ORG ? Especially if it's happening in your own congregation.   What are your feelings on that ?

That should be discussed with those involved and your inner circle, one of the reasons I made it clear in child prevention sources I even quoted from. Going into a church to shout about child abuse is not the best approach, going to the church and speaking with those who are involved, those who are trying to do what needs to be done and so forth, while you are at it, educate so and so about child abuse, the elders in question and the parents involved.

If this method is being taught to children regarding child abuse, you can do the same thing.

50 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You see what I'm getting from your comment is only theory not practice. Do you put your ideas into practice ?

Wisdom and education is key. It should be applied wisely, worse case scenario, you do not want to end up and or influence someone to be an avenger of blood, so to speak, for they become the sword in their own hands, hence why you have the common bystander like syndrome among people who do not want to get deeply involved with such matters.

[Space Merchant]

20 hours ago, Outta Here said:

By the way, did you get that child abuse issue you were talking about sorted? The Childline suggestion seemed to be a way you could keep personally out of the frame and still get some practical advice on the matter remembering that there could be children at risk. How did you get on with that? You did get on with that didn't you?

 

This I wonder too, granted the culprit involved was, as stated, mental unstable hence the cause of his actions. Pedophilia desires must've triggered around the culprit's early teens, granted that is the case with most pedophiles and of if they themselves had been abused.

 

As for the cause? Still unknown by most.

[JOHN BUTLER]

37 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

This I wonder too, granted the culprit involved was, as stated, mental unstable hence the cause of his actions. Pedophilia desires must've triggered around the culprit's early teens, granted that is the case with most pedophiles and of if they themselves had been abused.

 

As for the cause? Still unknown by most.

It would have been a no win situation on here whichever way I decided. Some said tell the police, others said mind your own business.

As it was pointed out to me. i only have third hand information, which I have no proof is correct. I believe what i was told by the person that told me because I trust them to tell the truth about such serious matters. However, the police may not believe me. And if i went to the Elders of the congregation then it would give them chance to destroy the evidence they have ,and to make me look like a slanderer. Remember they have accused me of slander once before.... So I've let it go by. 

It does not make me as bad as what I'm accusing the Elders of. Why ? Because the Elders have FIRST HAND INFORMATION FROM BOTH SIDES. They will know the accused and the victim. They will have taken notes from both sides. 

I'm not in a position to talk to either side. I know the accused but not the victim. I'm shunned by all of the congregation, that's over 120 people, so I have no chance of talking to them. The Elders would use it against me if i started investigations of my own. 

I think some on here are brothers of 'high rank' in the JW Org. So would you take it further ? 

The Congregation is Honiton, Devon England. The other details can be found on the topic. So any one in good standing can follow it through if they want to. And yes i would confirm what I've written on here. 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Lovely. So now please explain to me in clear plain English WHY 130 people from Honiton Devon England Congregation of JW's, WILL NOT SPEAK TO ME, as i left the JW Org of my own choice, due to the amount of Child Abuse in the Org Earthwide ?

From what I can gather here about you, I think that most of the 130 do not believe you are evil, and probably do not wish to treat you badly, but as you say, they THINK they are following the rules. Also, they will not merely treat you this way just because they feel you were concerned about the "child abuse" issue. If you have told the whole story then it is pretty clear that you are treated as someone who has formally disassociated, and we are told to treat that person the exact same way as someone who was disfellowshipped. (I think that is an abuse of power by the way on the part of the WTS policy.) It's probable that someone has added a few other "details" for the ears of the congregation, real or imagined. The more likely concern is that you have somehow become a spiritual danger because you are actively seeking out false information from apostates to spread it among the congregation in order to sow divisions and contentions. Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy, even if you are personally still "salvagable." They are told that to treat you like this is a way to save you. 

I personally would not follow the rules in this regard when it is a person I have known and if I feel that my continued association is more likely to be scriptural than unscriptural. There have been two persons where my opinion of them and my association with them didn't change a bit after they were disfellowshipped. One stayed out and one came back. I don't advertise this to the rest of the congregation, for fear of stumbling others, and for my own fear of the same kind of unscriptural disciplinary treatment that others have been subjected to.

But there is also a certain kind of friendship we build up with others that goes beyond rules and regulations. We show a certain type of loyalty (loyal love) to the other person, and they to us. In the Bible, if David had become a murderer and an adulterer, Jonathan would have still loyally stuck by him. "There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24)  I have seen several friendships like this, and would hope that no human rules would ever get in the way. I had a roommate at Bethel who joked that his friend who had recently been invited to Bethel, was like this. He claimed that even if he murdered someone, that this friend would never change. I thought about that and decided that he should move out and room with this arriving friend. 

If we truly have love, even for our enemies, we should have no problem dealing with tax collectors and sinners. How much more should we show love to someone who is in dire straits for a reason we already understand and one we can help them understand. This does not mean that I would go out of my way to seek out such a person, unless I was sure I could help them feel better with some encouragement. Often they truly put themselves in a situation where the best thing they  to do is to find their way back into the organization and I will often encourage that. But I would never encourage family members to disfellowship themselves from that disfellowshipped person.  It has been rare, but as I said, I have had a couple of occasions to "break the rule" in this regard.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote No 2 :  "We should be willing to speak out against the kind of videos we have seen recently which praise a person for avoiding familial contact with their own brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers"

 

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you really mean this ? A person that speaks out against the GB or the JW org would get disfellowshipped for 'Causing a division within the congregation"

I like a lot of what the GB and the JW org are doing, and I love many of my fellow associates in the congregation. But, YES, I really mean it. Speaking out is what I am doing right now. I often speak out against unscriptural policies, or discuss them here to help make sure whether my own reasoning is wrong. I don't have to speak out in front of my local congregation, nor do I cause divisions. I speak out on this forum, and I will sometimes speak frankly and honestly with people who approach me in person. I also send a couple letters a year to the GB and JW org. For the past few years, these have been anonymous. I have used this site to try to formulate the scriptural reasoning behind these letters.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What about speaking out against the CHILD ABUSE SITUATION IN THE JW ORG ? Especially if it's happening in your own congregation.   What are your feelings on that ? 

I have already spoken out against abuse and bad policy in this regard for about seven years now -- not just on forums but in person. This is why I cannot completely understand the treatment you are getting. At several opportunities over the last 30 years, I have spoken out against a policy of tolerating spousal physical abuse against wives, because my own sister had an experience like this with the usual requested cover-up from authorities and hospital personnel. I have even turned in a young 20 year old brother who showed serious problems in this regard at gatherings. He is not quite a person of full mental capacity, but this won't matter to an abused sister who would feel traumatized if he takes these types of actions any further. And it's quite possible he already poses a criminal danger when not in public. There should be heightened awareness of these problems to protect all potential victims, and where necessary, secular authorities and law enforcement need to be involved.

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Expelling is Biblical.

Expelling is Biblical. That's true. But what is the method and are Christians under some kind of rule of law that needs to be applied uniformly in all situations? What if it was a principle that is good, but the way it was executed even in Bible times turns out not to have been a Christian method.

For example, the Bible allows for a husband to disfellowship his wife. (The Bible never allows for a wife to disfellowship (divorce) a husband, by the way.) But are we under Mosaic rules for divorce just because it is Biblical? In fact, Jesus said that even though it was Biblical, it wasn't what Jehovah really wanted.

• (Matthew 19:7, 8 )  7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning.

Jesus doesn't say Moses wasn't inspired when he made the Biblical concession for divorce as one of the laws in the "perfect" Law covenant. But Jesus rejects this particular "jot and tittle" of the Law as a mere concession for human hard-heartedness, especially because it was being misused in practice.  "Hard-heartedness" is a form of having "no natural affection." (See my earlier post on this topic.)

There is an even more obvious case where the Governing Body now rejects something that is definitely Biblical. In the Bible, it's OK to "beat" your children, physically. When asked about this, GB member Geoffrey Jackson, in front of the Australian Royal Commission,  said that the GB now believe that the "rod" of correction is not a physical rod, but that it is the "virtual" rod of righteous corrective discipline. Of course, what do we then do with the Mosaic Law that says that if you beat your slave to death that there is no punishment as long as it takes the slave a day or two to die? (There is a punishment if the slave dies within in a shorter time period.)

• (Exodus 21:20, 21) . . .“If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money.

The way in which the point was made in front of the ARC was for the GB member to avoid this Scripture:

• (Proverbs 23:13, 14) 13 Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. 14 With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheʹol itself.

Instead, he used another verse, from the previous chapter, which was more ambiguous:

• (Proverbs 22:15) 15 Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him.

Of course, all of these verses use the same Hebrew word for "rod/stick" and the same Hebrew word for "beat/smite/strike." Same word for "rod" or "stick" is used here too:

• (Proverbs 26:3) 3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the back of stupid people.

I'm not in favor of the physical beating of children. There are times when the principle is correct, but the methods used were "hard-hearted." The Governing Body says we have updated our understanding to that of the world here, and I think everyone knows that Brother Jackson is not so stupid as to think that the Bible was not really referring to physical beatings with these Hebrew expressions. It's time we progressed in our understanding of what it means to disfellowship, too. 

You've argued that other religions see familial DFing, for example, as Biblical. But so what? In other religions they might still beat their children, beat their wives and servants, promote racism, divorce on any ground, and promote a lack natural affection, too.

[Anna]

My only dispute with the disfellowshipping policy is being TOLD "how to treat loved ones living outside the home" by means of videos. No matter how I slice it, I cannot see what is right about TOTALLY  ignoring a loved one and the loved ones innocent children (grandchildren) for years. The Israelites, under the mosaic law, were to stone those who broke God's laws, parents were to stone their children. Is this our version of stoning? The question is, were the Israelites also to stone the children (grandchildren) of someone who broke Gods law?

Why was stoning done away with? What was to happen with those who would have previously been stoned now that stoning was no longer practiced? Is there specific admonition by Paul which deals with family? How would we be breaking our loyalty to God if we treated our loved ones like we are supposed to treat our neighbors, tax collectors and those of the nations?  Didn't Paul say we should treat ones who have left as tax collectors? 

I would not advocate my views unless I was specifically asked about them. But I know how I would treat my son if he got Df'd. and it wouldn't be as is "recommended" in the video.

 

[Anna]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Governing Body says we have updated our understanding to that of the world here, and I think everyone knows that Brother Jackson is not so stupid as to think that the Bible was not really referring to physical beatings with these Hebrew expressions. It's time we progressed in our understanding of what it means to disfellowship, too. 

Excellent point

[Anna]

8 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So I've let it go by. 

It does not make me as bad as what I'm accusing the Elders of. Why ? Because the Elders have FIRST HAND INFORMATION FROM BOTH SIDES. They will know the accused and the victim. They will have taken notes from both sides. 

OK......So what if one day it was discovered that the accused has molested again. How would you feel if you could have perhaps prevented it? They would be talking about you on apostate forums saying this John Butler knew about it and didn't say anything. How would you defend yourself? Excuses? You ARE starting to sound as bad as the elders. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

OK......So what if one day it was discovered that the accused has molested again. How would you feel if you could have perhaps prevented it? They would be talking about you on apostate forums saying this John Butler knew about it and didn't say anything. How would you defend yourself? Excuses? You ARE starting to sound as bad as the elders. 

I don't need excuses as i have true reasons, as i mentioned but you chose to ignore. 

Tell me what ounce / gram of proof do i have that i could present to the police or anyone else ?  Especially as I am in BAD standing with the congregation. It would just look like slander. 

And tell me, WHOSE duty was it to report it to the police in the FIRST PLACE ?  Maybe not legal duty but moral duty. 

As for 'apostate forums', who really cares from that viewpoint. Anna i am my own man, I need no approval from men. 

However, i have a wife that i love dearly, and she still attends meetings at that Kingdom Hall. Life is hard enough for her as it is. Why should i make more problems for her ? 

And as I said, on here, some were telling me do and some were telling me don't. So if i had, then it would be the other side nagging me on here instead of you ...

Of course, as I've mentioned earlier, if someone on here wishes to grass me up, then i might just get a police officer knocking on my door asking me questions. Then i would have to tell them wouldn't I ?  

So it snowballs. You now know, so is it your duty to report me for not reporting it ?  Have a good day. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think some on here are brothers of 'high rank' in the JW Org. So would you take it further ? 

He’s wise to you, @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Get on it.

[JOHN BUTLER]

@JW Insider    Quote "From what I can gather here about you, I think that most of the 130 do not believe you are evil, and probably do not wish to treat you badly, but as you say, they THINK they are following the rules. Also, they will not merely treat you this way just because they feel you were concerned about the "child abuse" issue. If you have told the whole story then it is pretty clear that you are treated as someone who has formally disassociated, and we are told to treat that person the exact same way as someone who was disfellowshipped. (I think that is an abuse of power by the way on the part of the WTS policy.) It's probable that someone has added a few other "details" for the ears of the congregation, real or imagined. The more likely concern is that you have somehow become a spiritual danger because you are actively seeking out false information from apostates to spread it among the congregation in order to sow divisions and contentions. Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy, even if you are personally still "salvagable." They are told that to treat you like this is a way to save you."

Well I'm not as nice as even i would like me to be. But i did have those that I thought were friends in the congregation. 

Could you please 'widen out' on this thing about the 'rules' they think they are following.  Where did these rules originate if not from the GB ?

Only a very few knew of my concerns about the child abuse. I knew it would be unwise to tell too many as it would have led to me being disfellowshipped. However the few may by now have informed the many.  Which leads me to another point. In my opinion, even now, 90% of congregants still do not know about the Child Abuse situation within the JW Org. Because the ones that do know are not allowed to talk about it. 

I still think it should have been announced that I disassociated myself from the Org. Then folks would have known i wasn't d/fed.

I like that you think it is an abuse of power, but how do you relate that situation to the GB saying they are the Faithful and Discreet slave ? It doesn't seem very faithful or discreet to me.

Am i actively seeking out false information ?  And 'in order to sow divisions and contentions'? Really ? I feel I'm looking for truth.

Quote  :"Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy" 

Thank you, because that is one of the reasons I could not report to the police the information i had been given about Child Abuse. 

Anna, there is your answer from JW Insider.