Sam Herd Compares Shunning your own Children to Casting out Demons.

[JOHN BUTLER]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

We should shun what is bad and hold on to what is good. I personally have the right to "mark" anyone I wish in the congregation to personally shun them, if I feel that I have tried to make amends with them, yet my association with them is not good for our spiritual goals. I even knew two members of the Governing Body, Brother Ted Jaracz and Brother Lloyd Barry, who had shunned each other since about 1949. They had both served at the Australian Branch where Jaracz had been sent in 1946 to be the new Branch Overseer, only to be rather quickly called back to the United States to serve as a Circuit Overseer for about 20 years starting in Missouri (where my own family had moved in '64 to 'serve where the need was greater' and an uncle of mine also served as a circuit overseer near his circuit). Brother Barry, in 1949 was sent to become the new Branch Overseer in Japan, which he did for the next 25 years, or so. They would barely speak together or be seen together even after both came to Brooklyn to serve on the Governing Body starting in 1975. Some could pick up on the "animosity" that still showed at Annual Meetings and a couple of Gilead Graduations well into the 1980's. (The 1990's too, I'm told, but I was never in a place to see it then.)

This seemed to me to be an even more definitive form of shunning than the purpose of "marking" found in 2 Thess:

• (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15) 13 For YOUR part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

Now, you might say, but these were grown men, not members of the same family, yet Jesus said, even of family members:

• (Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.

There are good procedures to handle issues of cleanliness and morality that come up in the congregation, and they include a process found in Matthew 18 to discuss issues with a brother who may have sinned against you personally.

• (Matthew 18:15-20) 15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal 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, so that on the testimony 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. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever things you may bind on earth will be things already bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loosen on earth will be things already loosened in heaven. 19 Again I tell you truly, if two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them on account of my Father in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”

So, we personally have a right, and in some cases an obligation to shun others if it is a part of keeping the congregation clean. But this does not mean that we shun to the extent that we are creating emotional blackmail. It means that we don't go out of our way to associate when that type of association could be interpreted as sharing with the brother (or sister) in their wicked works. We would never go out of our way to prove ourselves inhospitable. "Let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" just means that we have gone a little farther than marking them so as to admonish them as a brother. We are trying to not give the appearance that their conduct reflects on the type of conduct that the majority of the congregation condone.

If we go too far, and forget our "natural affection" we have been overreached by Satan:

• (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him. 9 For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of YOU, whether YOU are obedient in all things. 10 Anything YOU kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for YOUR sakes in Christ’s sight; 11 that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Assuming the person is no longer practicing a sin that brings reproach if the congregation were to condone it, then the rebuke by the majority was enough. If the person does not wish to come back to the congregation, that is their business. We are not in the business of keeping track of the injury and shunning just because they willingly went out from us. They are as a person of the nations, and we feel no animosity toward persons of the nations.

• (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

If the person no longer wishes to be a brother, we have no reason to keep shunning that person. They are just like any other person of the world, which we treat respectfully and civilly and with no hard feelings about their past. We simply don't wish to accidentally give the impression that someone who presents himself as a brother is representing the Christian congregation.

Just how formal these processes need to be, might vary from congregation to congregation. Just how quickly a person is forgiven after a rebuke might vary too. The congregation is in a good place to know how a person's reputation and actions reflect on the reputation of the congregation itself.

So, yes, I can think of reasons I might shun even a member of my own family. If he were a child abuser, for example, who drags down the reputation of the congregation I would shun my own family member. I would still deal with him as needed, and never ignore a cry for help or a phone call. I would check up on his well-being and might even make sure he continues to get the material help he needs, even spiritual admonishment. But this is after at least a short period of making my displeasure clear through [probably a short] period of shunning, and thereby making sure that our own conduct doesn't appear to condone the conduct and thereby reflect badly on Jehovah's name and the Christian congregation. That might be an extreme example to make the point, but if it's true of one form of conduct, then it is also true to some extent for other forms of conduct. The rebuke and punishment should fit the crime.

You have changed what you first said, to what you personally think you should do. Firstly you said a child should be shunned. Now you are saying that you have the right to shun. Two totally different things. Of course you have the right to do as you wish, but do you have the right to make rules for others ? I ask you has Jehovah given you that right ? 

I think you might just be an elder the way you misuse scripture.

The Matthew 10 scripture surely is aimed at a family in which some accept the JW version of the 'truth' and some bitterly oppose it.  

Something strange in my ex congregation. A woman is a sister and has been for many years. Her husband is not interested in the 'truth' from the JW Org. However the husband goes to all the friendly gatherings of his wife's group and is well accepted. Isn't he as bad as a disfellowshipped person ?  Surely he is bad association if he does not want to know about God and God's purpose ? But because he has never been a JW he is allowed and accepted to be part of the gatherings. 

I find it amusing your comment about if a family member was a Child Abuser. And this is where i think you are an elder. Your concern is only about that he might drag down the reputation of the congregation.. You say you would shun him, but you do not say you would report him to the police or outside authorities.... This below was someone else's comment on the previous page. Think about it.   

We must not overlook the sobering fact that, at the present time, the words of Romans 13:3-4 still hold true regarding the secular authorities:

"For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."

How true this is, so why oh why did the GB withhold so much information from those secular authorities ?  Maybe everyone should shun the Governing Body ? 

[Anna]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

.etc. I sound stupid to myself because making so many variables. Don't you think the same Anna?

I simply think that it would be unreasonable to expect a family that lives together, as a family unit, to ignore one another. A family unit has a basic structure and this structure should be unaffected, otherwise it would become a dysfunctional family unit, and nobody wants that. When the children leave, then they set up their own family unit. They are no longer a unit with their mom and dad and siblings, and can do whatever they want in their own family (regardless where they live, but usually they will live separately from the original family unit). So really there is only one variable.

[JOHN BUTLER]

1 minute ago, Anna said:

I simply think that it would be unreasonable to expect a family that lives together, as a family unit, to ignore one another. A family unit has a basic structure and this structure should be unaffected, otherwise it would become a dysfunctional family unit, and nobody want's that. When the children leave, then they set up their own family unit. They are no longer a unit with their mom and dad and siblings, and can do whatever they want in their own family. So really there is only one variable.

Anna, there are so many different families living in so many different ways that the GB has no right to give blanket orders as to what a person should or should not do. Where grandchildren are involved, old parents involved, so many different things.  

I still say that Jesus said we should 'Love our enemies and pray for them'. So why would Jesus want us to ignore or shun our families ? 

[Anna]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

one of the dangers or fears was going to be whether or not the name or position of one of the perpetrators was going to be revealed.

But hearing this, and knowing how the brother who told me was deeply concerned that the truth not come out, I wondered the same thing. I thought maybe it should come out. (Per Ephesians 5:10-13)

Not long ago we had a situation in our congregation with a brother who was addicted to prescription drugs to the point where he got in serious trouble with the law. The nail in his coffin came though when he decided to come to the meeting for FS when the CO was here, inebriated. Yes, you read correctly. Anyway, the brothers wanted to take him home, short of manhandling him to stop him from driving off,  but they didn't succeed, so the CO and another brother followed him in their car to make sure he got home safely.  On the way, the inebriated brother managed to mount the sidewalk and crash into a traffic light post. Thankfully no one was hurt. But what I found curious was that the CO quickly made sure all our literature was out of that brothers car before the police arrived.

My husband and I later discussed this and realised that this was a good example of the mentality we have, to always give the appearance that we are morally on a higher ground, have the cleanest buildings, best equipment, perfect little families etc. (I recalled when you gave the experience of Bethel not wining the first place in cleanliness award (or something like that) and how one of the brothers was extremely upset about it).  It is no wonder then that we get dishonest when things are not quite so. But on a much more serious note, as you mentioned, it also causes us to cover over things that should NOT be covered over, such as child abuse. 

It is a heavy burden "carrying the utensils of Jehovah" and yet being riddled with the imperfections that plagues every single human being on earth.

It would be nice if one day we can be candid, open and honest about our failings. I think we are trying, in an indirect way. The last WT lessons pointing to the failings of Moses and Aaron and others shows that no one is exempt, not even those in leadership roles. And of course we know the "Slave" has put in print that they make mistakes (no kidding ). But this mentality, that we have a reputation to uphold, regardless whether actual reality is different, is deeply ingrained.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

there are so many different families living in so many different ways

True, but I only pointed out one way that actually applies to our discussion. The classic family unit, where children, whatever age, are still subject to their parents. That is where disfellowshipping will have this affect: "The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue."

That is what we were discussing on here wasn't it?

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Where grandchildren are involved, old parents involved, so many different things.  

Yes, so many different things. Which means that each person has to asses their unique situation and act accordingly. It is up to each individual in the end, the GB cannot make you do anything.

 

[JW Insider]

44 minutes ago, Anna said:

But what I found curious was that the CO quickly made sure all our literature was out of that brothers car before the police arrived.

I've heard of this type of thinking. My father was the presiding overseer when a wayward Witness was running around with a group that that got arrested for committing an armed robbery. My father called the Society's Service Department in Brooklyn for advice, and our Circuit Overseer called him back shortly and asked, in effect: "How quickly can you get him disfellowshipped?" To my father, this meant, how soon could you make contact with the arrested man, and ask the kind of questions that would allow this "fallen" brother to admit that he had recently been repeatedly committing sins without a proper level of remorse. Also, I think even in those days, my father would have to arrange for another "servant" in the congregation to be secretly listening in on the line.

As I recall the idea of acting on this so quickly kind of fell through anyway. Even though this was around 1970, I was 13, and it didn't occur to me at the time that this was really not just. At that time, we were still saying that a disfellowshipped person would die at Armageddon by default. Another case like this, I recall from another congregation happened around 1978, and another one I was told about (unconfirmed, though) from just a few years ago.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

(I recalled when you gave the experience of Bethel not wining the first place in cleanliness award (or something like that) and how one of the brothers was extremely upset about it).

This was a Bethel "Family Night" (kind of a variety show with talented brothers showing their skills and with a couple of experiences). An older longtime Bethelite had been in charge of a clean-up before a city inspection of factories in this area of Brooklyn. The Squibb Pharmaceutical factory got a first place award and Bethel's printing factory came in second place. (Which is actually really amazing considering the cleanliness required of a pharmaceutical company compared to the much lower bar required of a printing factory.) When Brother Schroeder and Brother Gehring heard this in rehearsal, they whispered to each other and Brother Schroeder talked to the brother. I couldn't really tell if the brother was extremely upset, but he looked concerned as if getting some negative counsel.  I was a few seats away and couldn't hear them. At the actual Family Night presentation, the brother who gave the experience changed it to "Both Squibb and the Watchtower each received a rating of 100 percent!!" The difference would have been striking to anyone who attended rehearsal which included about 50 people.

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I still say that Jesus said we should 'Love our enemies and pray for them'. So why would Jesus want us to ignore or shun our families ? 

We can love our disfellowshipped families and pray for them. There is a point obviously at which we will not ignore family. But that is left up to each person's discretion, since they know their situation, and the other person,  better than anyone else.

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

I simply think that it would be unreasonable to expect a family that lives together, as a family unit, to ignore one another. A family unit has a basic structure and this structure should be unaffected, otherwise it would become a dysfunctional family unit, and nobody wants that. When the children leave, then they set up their own family unit. They are no longer a unit with their mom and dad and siblings, and can do whatever they want in their own family (regardless where they live, but usually they will live separately from the original family unit). So really there is only one variable.

Thanks for respond. But i am not sure do you support idea that family members are stopped to be bond/connected with family bonds/ties, blood if they go to live somewhere else??

This idea promoted by WT not sound reasonable, not have common sense, and in fact generated what you very well described as;  

"it would become a dysfunctional family unit"

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thanks for respond. But i am not sure do you support idea that family members are stopped to be bond/connected with family bonds/ties, blood if they go to live somewhere else??

This idea promoted by WT not sound reasonable, not have common sense, and in fact generated what you very well described as;  

"it would become a dysfunctional family unit"

Yes it is a mess caused by the GB inventing things 'beyond the things written'.  When i was still a brother it was announced from the platform that one of our daughters was 'no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. This daughter was actually acting as a foster parent to a child which was born to one of our other daughters, so it was a deeply involved situation. I made it known to everyone that i would not shun my daughter who was no longer a Witness because she needed our help in many ways. The GB should not make these blanket rules which only put burden on people shoulders. 

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you saying that a disfellowshipped child SHOULD be shunned ? If so, what gives you the right to make that decision ? Has God through Jesus Christ given you authority ?  Show me three scriptures that you base your decision on. Not one but three. Jesus said to love our enemies and to even pray for them. Would Jesus tell us to disown our families ? I think not. 

When I first wrote that the point of this OP is not new and that a DF'd child should be shunned, I meant that this has been part of standard "policy" and therefore it is not an entirely "new point" that any Witness should be surprised at. I was also saying it's a rule that was evidently influenced by a different type of economic situation where children immediately moved away from the "roof" of their parents as soon as they could get steady employment. You have probably read some of the early discussions about disfellowshipping of family members in the Watch Tower publications and realize that the "rules" tend to map to the typical middle-class Anglo-American style of homelife that Bethel writers often imagined as an ideal target audience. What Brother Herd was saying was nothing totally new; we've said for years that children should be shunned.

So that was the context of my post that you questioned. But I thought you were putting it in a different context, where you were asking me personally if I thought that shunning a child could ever be "authorized" or scripturally defended. And to those questions I answered that there could be circumstances where shunning a child could be the right thing to do, personally, although I do not think that most shunning that goes on among us is thought through. For most of us, it's a congregational decision following a set of rules reinforced bureaucratically from a central legalistic authority: the WTS. But in reality each of us stands on our own. In this regard none of us should be under any central authority except God and Christ. We should not shun because we are told to shun. Even in the Corinthian congregation, Paul expected that a majority would rebuke this particular man, given the circumstances. He did not expect 100 percent agreement about the way a "disfellowshipped" person was treated. Note the words I highlighted when I quoted this verse above:

• (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 . . . not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him. 9 For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of YOU, whether YOU are obedient in all things. 10 Anything YOU kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for YOUR sakes in Christ’s sight; 11 that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Note also that Paul didn't expect to be the central authority for the Corinthian congregation, but that he would follow their lead in this matter. As they saw fit to forgive, Paul would obey their lead.

I think a lot of Witnesses would see another phrase in that passage as the one to highlight where Paul says "also I write to ascertain the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things." A lot of Witnesses would see this as a congregational directive from a central authority like Paul or the apostles or a "governing body." But looking at it in the context of what Paul is saying here and several times elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, he is really saying that we should NOT get caught up in any hard fast rules that are inflexible and unbending. The overriding rule to be obedient to "in all things" is the fact that Jesus is the true Head watching over the congregation, and Jesus taught us to be forgiving. Satan wants us to forget that and lose our "fellow feeling" lose our "humanity" lose our "natural affection." And trying to legislate love and forgiveness is a sure way to lose touch with the entire idea of Christ's love and Jehovah's undeserved kindness. If we are only following rules instead of a desire to imitate Christ, then we are being overreached by Satan.

At any rate, this was my point, that we should not be expected to shun just to follow the rules imposed upon a congregation. We shun when it is appropriate, and the Bible tells us that there are times when this is appropriate. But it is our personal conscience telling us what we should do. Just because Lloyd Barry shunned Theodore Jaracz doesn't mean the rest of us should have, as it was probably based on the idea of Matthew 18 or 2 Thessalonians 3. When something is well known in a congregational setting then it is probable that many individuals will decide what to do, and most will do the right thing. If 5 people out of 100 are shunning a man for some reason, this does not necessarily the rest should. Even if a majority of a congregation has shunned someone this does not necessarily mean that the rest should either. (And I suppose this could occur in cases where family bonds should override the majority for certain individuals, too.) Shunning is a "rebuke" meant to say that Christians in the congregation do not approve of the way the conduct might reflect on the teachings of Christ. The reputation of the Christian congregation is the same thing, or should be. The congregation should reflect the teachings of Christ the Head. I know you thought I was overly concerned with the reputation of the congregation, but this is a scriptural concern, too. Note that in the same or adjacent context of how the Corinthians were handling an infamous case of incest, it appears that by not "shunning" the wicked one, it was giving the impression that the Corinthians were proud of putting up with such a thing. But just following this is another verse that appears to also speak to reputation:

• (1 Corinthians 6:3-6) . . .Then why not matters of this life? 4 If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down on in the congregation whom you assign as judges? 5 I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers? 6 Instead, brother goes to court against brother, and before unbelievers at that!

Yes, this idea gets abused, so that in some churches, even murderers and extortioners and other criminals find sanctuary, and child sexual abusers have been hidden and shuffled around in these same churches. Unfortunately even in our own congregations certain such crimes have been hidden. I don't condone this. Crimes are for the government to punish, those who hold the sword. But the civil matters can surely be adjudicated by wise trusted brothers who could at least do as well as the TV-star "Judge Judy" and her ilk. (You might actually be surprised at how many such "cases" are worked out through congregational elders.) Of course, what's a "civil" matter in some countries might be a "criminal" matter in another country: adultery, for example. The "superior authorities" of Romans 13 have that say, unless they are overstepping God's rulership.

By the way, I don't mean to imply that shunning is only for the reputation of the congregation, looking at it from the outside. There are insiders looking at the reputation of the congregation, too. And another reason has nothing to do with reputation, directly, and that is the need to keep the congregation clean. The "spirit" or attitude of an entire congregation can be influenced, and specific individuals in the congregation could be improperly influenced. "A little leaven spoils the whole lump of dough." "One bad apple..." "Bad associations spoil useful habits." etc.

Note that in Revelation 2 and 3, that the congregations reported directly to Jesus as Head as to whether they properly shunned the teachings or prophecies of certain ones affecting those congregations.

Again, I'll repeat that our method of shunning can be based on our own personal conscience as individuals. But there is nothing unscriptural about it. There may be something unscriptural about the way many of us go about it, however.

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Sometimes, to do the "right thing" ... you have to suffer GREAT personal injury, loss of livelihood, your home, your family, or even have to die.

Sometimes you have to do that thing which is abhorrent and against all natural ingrained inclinations ... AND THINK!

Dying is easy to do for your faith, losing your money and real estate is harder to do, as there is no glory in it.

Dying for your faith is an instant "free pass". OTHER people will clean up the mess.

Losing your money, your comfortable job,  and your real estate is embarrassing ... and HARD.

That is why we have the current policy of chopping off the babies head when it cries.

It does not require any real thinking, and we STILL sleep warm at night in a soft bed.

Because we know that ... no matter WHAT we do .... the free money keeps rolling in.