ComfortMyPeople

Your quote is impressive. Mainly as one sees the source and what happened to these persons. And I would wish than my people soon no longer resembles similar to this organizations.
The problem, JTR Jw, is that there is Biblical basis to disfellowshipping, but (is my opinion) not the way we’re applying it. And our procedures could be seen as tyranny, as you’ve said.
Do you know how was also a tyrant? David, when abused of his power to steal the wife of one of his soldiers and later to kill him. But there we were, you and me, obeying the orders of this tyrant because he was the “Governing Body” of those days. Later Jehovah punished him. May be some day Jehovah will punish us for our collective sins? Who knows
Also, wasn’t also David a tyrant when forced to his generals to take a census, against the opinion of them and, obviously, against the point of view of Jehovah? But there we were, you and me, listing people. Later Jehovah punished him. May be some day Jehovah will punish us for our collective sins? Who knows
And Peter, wasn’t a tyrant when, abusing of his power in the congregation obliged to humble and happy brothers to stop their friendship for an issue of race? But there we were, you and me, preaching to neighbors and trying they came to the same meetings where this (tyrant) Peter gave talks. Later, Jehovah (through Paul) punished him. May be some day Jehovah will punish us for our collective sins? Who knows
I could add some more examples you already know. But the point is… just a moment, I’ve just remembered another blatant example of tyranny. Only one more, please.
·        (3Jo 9, 10) “I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not accept anything from us with respect. That is why if I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing in spreading malicious talk about us. Not being content with this, he refuses to welcome the brothers with respect; and those who want to welcome them, he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation”. What was the position of Diotrephes in the congregation? The “coordinator” we would say today. A person with the capacity to expel other from the congregation. And what a tyranny! If others don’t share his opinion about John, out from the congregation! The point is, how to react to tyranny inside the congregation? What was the apostle advice? Fight against this injustice? Trying to gain adepts to his (legitimate) cause? Divide the congregation against this proud man? Well, we can read IMPLICITYLY “do nothing. Wait, perhaps one day could I come. In the meantime do your best, preach, strengthen others”. And you and I know what happened. John probably never went to this congregation, by his advanced age. When would Jehovah correct this tyranny? In the New World.
So, dear James Thomas Rook Jr. I feel you’re a little bit as myself. We both feel like boiling blood. And we both sincerely believed to be right on this. I only encourage you to wait in Jehovah. Be sure, at his proper time he will correct the injustice… even the injustice inside His people. He always has done so.

I think your thoughts are very valid. I share your opinion. The main strong of 1Co 5:11 is to avoid persons with double life. But at some point, the “double” life disappears. Let’s considerer the following (common) situation.

A young baptized girl lies to her parents and the congregation (and Jehovah) and have sex with other young people.  She has the view of “enjoy life”, and she’s expelled. Now, she’s thirty years old, has her own children and become very conservative and protective with her own family. But, as you’ve mention, she doesn’t want to be JW again.

Why, when she was a recent disfellowshipped person, should we avoid having deals with her? Because she completely enters in the meaning of “anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral” and then, the Bible command me “stop keeping company”.

So far so good. But sometime after (we’re not ruling about the numbers), she becomes simply a neighbor in my vicinity. Is she a bad company? Perhaps. As you’ve pointed out, it is up to me to decide who are good or bad companies. What would be the outcome if my wife have some coffee with her in our home, or in a snack bar? Perhaps my wife says to her “I still remember your fine answers in the meetings…” you know, this kind of comments. Perhaps the ex-sister would react to this love as the prodigal son, remembering the warm in his parent’s house.

Changing a little bit the situation. My wife has a coffee with this ex-sister. Now this woman starts to openly defend ideas about “free love”, to the extent to say “and when I would see your daughters I’ll try to persuade them about my view”. At this moment, this woman has become not a normal neighbor. Perhaps we’ll give to our daughters the counsel: “(2Jo 10) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”

And what is the reason the GB allows this situation for so long time? Perhaps some answers are in my other post about the (lack of ) humility. But, also, there is another reason, in my opinion: Pharisaic attitude. But this is, perhaps, theme for other post.

Your final quote from our Awake magazine should make us think

Hello TrueTom.

I’ve see your points. This is exactly what I’ve being doing all my life, and I hope to continue doing. Just one thought about this idea you’ve mention:

·       


 
This should be the way, correct, but what really happens has to do with you other idea:

·       


Many people, JW also, love rules, they don’t know live without them. Specially rules from sources highly respected, as the GB. You should have seen many body of elders arguing, fighting about one particular sentence in one article, one concrete word in a letter from the branch. A pity.

For example, there is another funny post about a wedding ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/30808-wedding-of-a-couple-of-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses/) You see the groom is wearing a beard. About the recent Watchtower article about beards, in my country, the only culture where to wear a beard is perceived negatively, do you know who are they? Yes, we, JW. No other people in the country feel this way. Well, I’m not talking about beards like Charles Darwin or Karl Marx, you understand me.

And, after considering the article in the congregations, do you know what was the reaction in some congregations? To write to our branch, asking for a “clear rule” as if our country fits between the culture where beards are good or bad. Yes, no discernment, not sound judgment, simply, rules to save us the necessity to thinking about.

And this is what really happen in so many congregations. Rules, rules and more rules. We’re specialist in turning advises into rules, suggestion into laws. Is it happening in your area, or only in mine? And, when this apply to this serious matter we’re considering, the disfellowshipping and posterior shunning this attitude had made an enormous damage.

On the other hand, you also mention these other commentaries.

·       


I agree. I can’t openly express that my views are different to the slave direction. In fact, I’m obliged to require its compliance, and I do this. But I can also add some comfort to these brothers and avoid they leave the truth. A real case:

An aged brother resigned as elder years ago, when the congregation was aware he allowed his expelled son came sometimes to his home for meals. He wrote to the branch with this simple question:

·        “Why disfellowshipping don’t broke my matrimonial bones, but have to broke the bones with my son?”
The answer (based in 1Co 5:9-11) didn’t convince him at all. Now, imagine I give him the advice: “obey the slave directions because these are right”. As this brother, in his heart he knows they aren’t, his possible next mental attitude is to start thinking “may be this is not God’s people”, and begins to listen our enemies… and you know how this could finish.

When I’ve spoken with him about his painful situation, I simply emphasize the necessity to wait in Jehovah, until He considers the proper time to correct this problem. In this way, I try to transmit he comfort.

Finally, TrueTom, I apologize because perhaps some ideas or feelings you’ve transmitted in your kind post I couldn’t grasp, because my difficulties with English. Anyway, your post has very valuable thoughts.

Hello TrueTom!

How many good points you’ve mentioned. Let me remark some of them I completely agree.

Apostates, people who hate us (some of my relatives) share this kind of thinking. One uncle of me is saying form more than 40 years that our “bosses” are getting rich at our expense. I’ve tried any kind of argument with no success. Sincerely people, on the other hand, when get knowledge of this kind of facts, the translation to hundreds of languages, spoken many of them in impoverished regions, can clearly see the sincerity of our religion in our efforts to help others spiritually.


As regarding the painfully experiences JWI (and others) are told, if these are anecdotic or generalized, my opinion is that, to the degree an old generation of overseers have been replaced by a new one, things are improved. Also, many schools of elders and other training have contributed. What, perhaps, could have contributed to a deeper change? Related to other post, if the GB would have shown more humility.


Regarding JTR, I share your opinion. I suppose that a trip with this man would be anything but boring! I think his spiritual life (petulant assumption by myself to know so much of this man) is like when you hit so hard you cannot stop screaming. At that moment, no explanation is useful, all you want is to scream. And the reason is that you rage of pain. And JTR is screaming because he has spiritual pain.


Until now, I’ve restrained myself to expose my points of view regarding ourselves, JW. I’ve thought: “if newcomers see this mistakes about which I speak, sure they will stumble”. Do you share my fear, TrueTom? But I’ve changed my mind because similar information is spread over the net in places infected of hate, lies, half-lies, imputation of false motives and so on. Sooner or later my students, humble brothers and people in general will be in contact with this kind of misinformation. I prefer they get the same information but from one source (myself, for example) that is loyal to Jehovah’s people. I’m JW, I’ serving as elder, in fact, I’m the secretary in my congregation. I’m pioneer... but when I criticize some matters, I never say: “these are false apostles, or thieves, or they wash the brain” as apostates do. I criticize, yes, but I say (as you, TrueTom does): “Always God’s people have made mistakes. Always the leaders in Jehovah’s people have made mistakes. Many times God’s people have needed correction from God. For these reasons I believe we’re God’s people in spite of the errors”



In less words. They are going to learn the mistakes anyway from a thousand places, let them to learn from persons (as many in this forum) trusting in that Jehovah, at His proper time, will correct whatever consider necessary.

Can we function without the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society?

·        *** w71 12/15 p. 762 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
·        AN INTERESTING PROBLEM
·        At the close of discussing matters such as the above at the annual chartered meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania at Buckingham, Pa., on October 1, 1971, an interesting problem was posed for the audience, especially for the voting members present of the said Society. It was this: Nineteen hundred years ago, the “faithful and discreet slave” class with its governing body functioned without a legal corporation chartered by Caesar, and it did so—successfully, magnificently. What about the governing body of the “faithful and discreet slave” class of the present time? Can it also function without the legal nonprofit corporation known as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania? and succeed? In the light of the precedent established by the apostles and fellow elders of the Jerusalem congregation in the first century C.E., we leave you to answer the question for yourself.
I must confess that when I first read this question in the article quoted (I was very young then) I couldn’t answer confidently, I thought: “how can we get our wonderful books and magazines, our big rotary presses…” So, in spite the article implicitly was indicating a positive answer. For me the “Society” was so linked to our spiritual prosperity, so evident of being a tool in Jehovah’s hand that I hardly could understand the reason for the “interesting problem posed for the audience.”

I’m in no way insinuating the Society has not been or is not useful, wonderful useful to accomplish Jehovah’s will in this period of history. What I wish is to bring up the side-effects of this situation. What situation I am talking about?

The fact that one corporation, with his offices, his personnel, his factories, his timetables, his economic needs, the skills needed. Promotions and dismissals, bowing and scrapping, and many other factors would have affected our entire organization.

Even more, the fact that, unlike what happened in any other organization, the staff and the majority of persons directly working for this Society, are living under the same roof in Bethel houses, as an enormous family, under a lot or rules and regulations needed to accomplish the day by day duties.

And still more, the fact that persons with spiritual responsibilities, as teaching, writing or the service, are immersed at some extend under this system of things.

The effect that, quite a few of these persons, for decades and decades, some of them never, have had any secular job, no pressure from bosses, no teasing from coworkers.

All of this, and more I could have mention, comes into play in our particular issue about the disfellowshiping. JWI raises the possibility that some prominent brothers are divorced from reality. I confirm this. I’ve seen this by myself. I’ve talked about this situation with a lot of friends, many elders, some of them C.O. I have evidence of this.

I’m not saying these brothers are bad people. To the contrary. Many of them are wonderful people and fine Christians. I’ve learnt a lot from them. I’m talking that the infrastructure, the framework we’ve develop to accomplish the work carries this negative result: some inflexible people, lovers of rules, lovers of reports, detached from normal life.

I could say some flagrant examples. But I prefer don’t speak too much, because I must respect persons with authority.

What wonderful buildings!

(Mark 13:1) “As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings.”

Many brothers don’t appreciate Bethel, nor respect the “Organization”, they almost worship these tools. When they visit Bethel talk about these facilities with its gardens and arrangements as a sort of advanced paradise. But the courageous commentary in the 1971 Annual Meeting putted the finger on the sore spot. Does Jehovah need factories, legal corporations? He can make the stones speak!

My “happy world”, before paradise, would be with the Watch Tower Society, factories, Bethel Houses and similar to a minimal extent. Commercial companies printing our literature. Translators not living in mini-bethel (Remote Translation Offices) but in their own houses, software developers collaborating using remote tools without the necessity to live in a given building, and so forth.

And mainly, and above all. Persons on charge of teaching, taking decisions over the life of others, especially these persons, should work with their owns hands, living in the real work. And after their secular work, as we do many of us every day, work for Jehovah’s worship.

By the way, I think this have Scriptural basis:

·        *** w92 12/1 pp. 28-29 Not Peddlers of God’s Word *** Paul was not dependent on hospitality. He had learned a trade that required hard work and long hours but resulted in low wages. When the apostle arrived in Corinth as a missionary, “he found a certain Jew named Aquila . . . and Priscilla his wife. . . . So he went to them and on account of being of the same trade he stayed at their home, and they worked, for they were tentmakers.”—Acts 18:1-3.
·        Later, in Ephesus, Paul was still hard at work. (Compare Acts 20:34; 1 Corinthians 4:11, 12.) He may have specialized in working with cilicium, the rough, goat-hair tent material from his hometown area. We can imagine Paul sitting on a stool, bent over his workbench, cutting and sewing until late into the night. Since shop noise was likely minimal, making it easy to talk while toiling, Paul may have had opportunity to witness to the shop owner, his employees, slaves, customers, and friends.—Compare 1 Thessalonians 2:9.
·        The missionary Paul refused to commercialize his ministry or in any way give the impression that he was living off the Word of God. He told the Thessalonians: “You yourselves know the way you ought to imitate us, because we did not behave disorderly among you nor did we eat food from anyone free. To the contrary, by labor and toil night and day we were working so as not to impose an expensive burden upon any one of you. Not that we do not have authority, but in order that we might offer ourselves as an example to you to imitate us.”—2 Thessalonians 3:7-9.

Above all, many thanks JWI for sharing so sensitive subjects. The same I must admit regarding JTR, only that he expresses more emphatically!

All these situations many of us have experienced always lead to bitterness and disappointment. And not infrequently to drift away from the congregation. What a pity! I’m so sorry what you’ve mention about your family, friends and yourself.

Before coming to the substance, let me explain what happened about 20 years ago in one of the congregations I was serving as elder. A very dear, aged sister, died. Her widower was disfellowshipped some time later. Then fell seriously ill. As this man was completely alone, without family, one day phoned to us, the elders to get some help from the brothers (to buy medicines and so). The body of elders made arrangements to take care of him. He died still before could be reinstated, under some care of the congregation. I am talking about year 2000 approximately.

The elders pondered the Watchtower article I’ve already quoted:

·        *** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones *** Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this has developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint”
And with clear conscience we took that decision. To be, simply, humans.
When I heard situations as you’ve described, believe me, I feel displeased, indignant, with deep sorrow (I’m not sure if these are correct English words expressing my feelings).

Now, it arises the next question. How it is possible a humble body of elders from a far country showed, apparently, more mercy and a more balanced view to treat this matters, that distinguished Bethel elders in our headquarters? More, if they, as JWI has suggested, closely worked in the same department where the article quoted was published?

When I was trying to answer, JWI has posted a new commentary. In his post there is information I was reluctant to write because I don’t want to hurt any susceptibility, but now you’re paved the way.

But as I have an appointment to preach, better I’ll write tonight!

THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT

JWI, what a pity that I have to give you the reason!

When we, the JW established the expelling arrangement we put an emphasis in Moses Law that scares, as you’ve quoted:

·        *** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers *** In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
·        We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
·        Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof
Yes, the spirt behind these lines was “what a pity, we can’t stone these persons”. Also, the irony in your last line “perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia”, sadly, I think that also fits.

What results there were with this kind of spirit? In 1974, about 22 years later, the Watchtower gave us a clue:

·        *** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
·        Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies.
·        But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this has developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint”
I know someone will cry: “the fault is in the brotherhood, not in the ‘slave class’ on charge of teaching”. As a contrast, in this very article THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT in the direction of mercy:

·        *** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 *** As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
 

Sadly, as some problems arose due this article, in the sense that in some congregations relatives attending meetings exchanged greetings with other Christian relatives, a new turn of the screw in the direction of firmness and stiffness came soon:

THE IN/OUT RULE

·        *** w81 9/15 p. 27 par. 8,18-19 If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped *** We need to examine two distinct situations. The first is where a Christian lives in the same household with a disfellowshiped or disassociated family member. The second is where such a relative is not in the immediate family circle.
·        The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at one’s home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bible’s inspired direction: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11. Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum.
And this has been our position since then.

One final thought. I heard once, or read in one of our biographies, a very sound counsel one brother used to say: “if any doubt, better the side of love” or something similar. I hope our GB, someday, will consider again his position regarding this thorny matter. In the meantime, let us continue showing love and mercy to these families.

Thanks JWI to take the time for your extended answer, as always with quite interesting points. Above all, I wish to focus my concerns, my worries:
·        1. I’m afraid that our present position about disfellowshipped relatives are based in a way of interpreting some passages that violates many important Bible principles.
 
·        2. The idea that, my behavior when a disfellowshipped relative is living under my roof should change when the same relative is living by his means has no biblical basis, no one verse could be pointed out to support this division -without extending (forcing) its meaning-.

·        3. I think that, to consider a person as disfellowshipped regardless of the length of the elapsed time, violates the sentence (1Co 5:11) “...with anyone called a brother”, because no one in the community could call as a brother whom leave the congregations years, decades ago. And if this is so, to force parents, children and other close relatives to cut off their relation for so long is, simply, cruel.

All other principles you, JWI have mention are indeed very valid. But at this moment, the above three ideas consume me. If someone could help me to think I am wrong, he or she would make me very happy, because as elder I’m continuously living with this kind of contradictions. I mean, to teach and defend a position that personally don’t believe is the best one (is it correct in English: “falling between two stools”). But, as I’ve mention many other times, I obey to the “slave”.

What I do is trying to charge more one side over the other. For example, this real situation in my previous congregation (I’ve mention about the sister before).

A sister has a young son about 25years old. When this young man was on working trips, the mother used to phone him to care about his well-being (you know, mothers). Now, he’s disfellowshipped, leaves the home, and other elders in the congregation inform her about the necessity to cut off any contact. She gets depressed. My wife and me, when visiting her and she explains her sorrows, I simply said:

·        “Dear sister X, imagine (yes, it isn’t going to happen!) that your loved son perishes in this trip and you haven’t phone him, would not you feel terribly wrong?
In this way, I try to accommodate the SPIRIT of God’s Word and the LETTER of the GB instructions *** km 8/02 p. 4 par. 9 *** “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”

By the way, our sister wasn’t allowed to be pioneer. But she is very happy serving Jehovah and, at the same time showing “natural affection” to her son.

It’s my fault. My English level is less than acceptable. What I was trying to say has to do with the fine experiences in some Watchtower articles, indicating that some expulsed persons, in seeing their families had cut off all their relationship, this had contributed to move them to come back to the congregation.

Without any doubt this has been true in many cases, what I personally have seen is, rather, bitterness and resentment for this measure.

Eoin, I fully agree with your statement:

·        “There are guidelines on specific situations, as per km 8/02. Other balancing factors not included in your listing are provided by Jesus at Matt.10:37 and Lu.14:26. Considered counsel from competent older men might be helpful. Careful weighing of effects on the conscience of others in the congregation, mature or otherwise, would also need to be factored in of course. But in the end, the decisions on specific situations rest with the individuals involved.”
And, we are both fully in line with the biblical arrangement of expulsion. The reasons for this and the resulting benefits. But, as in many other things, “the devil is in the details”. Regarding our issue about disfellowshipped relatives, I’ve seen the situation mentioned in the next quote:

·        *** w81 9/15 p. 30 par. 19 *** “In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally). I feel a deep concern that those who have been disfellowshiped need to see that their course is hated by Jehovah and by his people and that they should feel a real need to become genuinely repentant. What will help these disfellowshiped ones to change when they are continually greeted by all in their large families who know of their practices?”
Obviously, this is not fair. But (this is my personal experience, perhaps in other areas is different) I’ve seen a lot more in the opposite direction: elders eagerly watching any approach between parents and sons and daughters when some of them are disfellowshipped. And then, warning the brothers with removal of privileges, adding in this way more pain to the already painful situation.

DISCHARGIN 1 Cor 5

In my previous post, I didn’t mention what I think is the real “load” or meaning in this part of the known verse:

·        (1 Co 5:11) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother…”
I think the more basic meaning about the “anyone called a brother” sentence is simple. This man was a false brother, his behavior showed this. In spite of any affirmation in the sense that he was a brother, he wasn’t. So, the emphasis, the load, the charge, perhaps should be the BEHAVIOR of anyone in the congregation.

I think that in our literature, when we address the theme about disfellowshipping, we emphasized the “anyone” word, in the sense that It doesn’t matter if the person expulsed is my relative, I should treat it as such, as expulsed. The emphasis is, then, the WHO.

Finally, there is another possibility. To place the emphasis in the “called a brother” sentence. As I’ll try to prove, the “charge” would pass to the TIME factor. Let’s see.

YOU ARE DISFELLOWSHIPPED NOW AND FOR EVER

These are real situations. Persons are expulsed from us, perhaps when they were young ones. Over time, they get married, have children, and they behave more or less as any another person in the community. Now, time goes by. One year, five… decades. It doesn’t matter, they are disfellowshipped people. You can’t consider them as any not Christian neighbor you say hello in the elevator. Yes, perhaps you’re not going to fraternize with non-Christian neighbors, but you can salute them. Not to these persons.

And, what make this worst, in my opinion, is the fact I’ve personally seen, and the question on this post. The way this affects to the parents and fleshly brothers of this person. They are bound to maintain the deals at the minimum expression for decades.

And here it comes 1 Cor 5:11 to our rescue! The “called a brother” sentence and its TIME factor. If I’m expulsed ten, twenty, thirty (I have a case in my former congregation of more than 40 years)… am I still being considered or seen by others as “brother” or ex-brother? Why, then treat me as such?

Eoin. You’ve pointed out some very valid points. For example, our spiritual relationships are more important than fleshly ones (according several verses you quoted).
The scenarios I’ve described are all reals. I’ve seen a lot more in decades. Sadly, I can’t remember no one in the line the Watchtower described, expulsed persons reacting favorably to the cessation of deals. Of course there have been many, but the fact I’ve seen so many negatives make me think that this later surpass the positives.
When you mention “no rules can me made”. The fact is that we have rules:
·        *** km 8/02 p. 4 par. 9 *** “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum” Well, my whole point was, where in the Bible is said I can’t associate with my son, or my father, because he’s expulsed? How can the “quit mixing with anyone” command annul dozens of commands of equal weight when they say I MUST have deals with my father, son, and such ones? Would not it be unnecessary the mention of “quit mixing in company with anyone… except your family” because Jehovah considered these other passages would lead us to the correct and balanced view about how to deal with our disfellowshipped family?
Now, I’m going to elaborate this imaginary situation:
I have a close friend in the congregation which is expulsed for smoking. If I use to walk with him on the street, perhaps while he’s smoking, it isn’t true that observers perhaps will think I approve his behavior, or that I don’t care?
But now, the expulsed is my son, for the same reason. If I walk with him, perhaps also with my grandchildren, who will think that I’m approving the smoking? Everyone must think I’m, simply, walking with my son, because he is my son.
As elder, when these difficult situations arise, I usually emphasize the Bible commands ruling family life, more than the supposed necessity of cutting off any contact. Nevertheless, as you aptly mention, if the congregation is disturbed this brother will lose his privileges.

DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES AND SPACE TRAVELS
Grant me some moments with this regression: our former point of view about visiting, traveling or living in another planet. To show that the Bible disapproves this idea, we found good few of declarations quoting Ps. 115 in this way:
CHARGING Ps 115
·        *** g73 5/22 p. 13 Is There Life Beyond the Earth? *** Of our planet alone the Holy Bible declares that God “formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isa. 45:18) And long ago God’s Word declared that the heavens belong to the Creator, “but the earth he has given to the sons of men.” (Ps. 115:15, 16) So the Bible shows that the earth is unique among planets. This was an example of a verse “charged, loaded” with a greater meaning than the writer intended. The Psalm only says that Jehovah has given the earth to mankind. There is nothing discouraging space travels.
DISCHARGING Ps 115
I was very excited in the 1986 district convention when the book “Worldwide Security” was released. I browsed the book still sitting in the stadium and found this paragraph:
·        *** ws chap. 22 p. 184 par. 10 *** To all eternity our earth will bear a distinction that no other planet throughout endless space will enjoy, though the earth may not be the only planet that will ever be inhabited. In this way, the Psalm was discharged of an added meaning.
In other thread was showed proof as we’ve done the same with other passages:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/29940-our-problem-with-the-humility/?page=3
CHARGING Ge 9
Regarding the inappropriate of transplants of organs:
·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 *** […]  Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you[…] Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. DISCHARGING Ge 9
·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals  […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. CHARGING Ro 1:24-32
Considering the appropriate intimacy inside the matrimony:
*** tp chap. 13 p. 150 par. 20 *** The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) DISCHARGING Ro 1
*** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 [Footnotes] *** Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. The previous three examples are provided to show that we (the GB) many times, inadvertently, have loaded some verses to defend a particular, favorite, entrenched stand. Could this also be happened with our position regarding disfellowshipped relatives?
COMING BACK TO EXPULSION
First things first. Disfellowshipping has scriptural base. Some examples
·        (Mat 18:17) “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”. ·        (1 Co 5:11-13) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is […] not even eating with such a man. “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves”. ·        (Titus 3:10)  “As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition” ·        (1 Ti 1:20) “Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught ·        (2 Jo 10, 11) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.  For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. t by discipline not to blaspheme”. So, without enter into the details about our dealings with these persons, the Bible clearly states we should cut off our relationship with expulsed people.
OUR POSITION WITH EXPULSED RELATIVES
Our present view is reflected in the next quotes:
*** w88 4/15 p. 28 par. 13,14*** Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped […] does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue. […] The situation is different if […] is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother […] not even eating with such a man. Some exceptions and considerations that could arise:
·        *** w81 9/15 pp. 28-29 pars. 14-17 *** But what if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) Perhaps it seems necessary to bring the parent into the home […] Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. And there are similar statements on other literature. So, there are two kind of possible deals with expulsed relatives:
·        Indoors. Normal dealings, without spiritual contact ·        Outdoors. As little as possible First consideration. This difference, indoor/outdoor is arbitrary. I mean, there is no scriptural base to make this difference. When the GB stablishes that we can at home to have a normal life with our son or husband, but when they leave home this contact should completely stop (with some exceptions), the GB could well have chosen a more drastic approach. Or the opposite, less hard. Sure?
CHARGING “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother” (1Co 5)
Apparently, this verse stablishes beyond doubt, that as my son (for example) enter into the expression “anyone called a brother”, I must stop relating to him, at least as soon as he leaves home.
But let me put one example. Have you ever preached to any person that firmly believes God is going to burn the earth? Perhaps this person quotes (2 Pe 3:7) “But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire”. What do you usually answer? Perhaps something like: “well, you’ve taken out of context… we should consider the rest of the Bible… and so”.
Accordingly, What other verses would prove that our present understanding of 1Co 5, when is applied to relatives, even those who live outside the home, is excessively charged?
·        (Ex 10:2) “...and in order that you may declare to your sons and your grandsons how severely I have dealt with Egypt”. o   How could I show interest in my grandson if I never visit my son? Or I never allow him to visit me? Does my grandson cease to be my grandson because my son is expulsed? So, this verse should qualify our position about 1Co 5.
 
 
 
·        (Eph 6:2) “Honor your father and your mother” is the first command with a promise”. o   How can accomplish with this basic command if I never visit or phone to my expulsed parents? Does this verse only apply when my disfellowshipped parents are sick? If so, what’s the scriptural base?
 
 
 
·        (1 Ti 5:4) “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to repay their parents and grandparents what is due them, for this is acceptable in God’s sight”. o   According this words, I have a debt with my parents and grandparents. Also, taking care of my children and grandchildren is godly devotion. All of this is qualified as acceptable in God’s sight. Does 1 Co 5 override, cancel this fundamental truth regarding the familiar relationship?
 
 
 
·        (Proverbs 23:22) “Listen to your father who caused your birth, and do not despise your mother just because she has grown old.” o   Now my mother and father are expulsed. They leave in their own home. Should I, according our present view of 1 Co 5 stop to ask them for counsel? Stop visiting them? Is it not a form of despise? Are 1co 5 and Pro 23:22 at odds, in contradiction?
 
 
 
·        (2 Timothy 3:3) “having no natural affection”. o    If I stop to visit or phone my relatives, how can I show natural affection? Does it invalidate our view of 1 Co 5 a feeling the Bible says it is natural?
What I’ve tried to proof with the previous passages is that, for correctly understand 1 Cor 5, we should take into consideration the entire Bible. And God’s Word is very clear indicating that my deals with my close family doesn’t perish if they, sadly, are disfellowshipped. And the difference concerning if these relatives live with me or not, does not appear anywhere.
THE “BENEFITS” OF OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING
Here and there, we can find or listen experiences indicating that former expulsed persons received encouragement to come back to the congregation because the family firmly avoid any deal with them. Obviously, this is true.
But, my own experience is that when the Christian family cuts the relationship, it generates feelings of resentment and bitterness. What I’ve seen is that these persons develop hate against the JW, because the congregation imposes this drastic behavior. Recently I’ve tried to approach to one ex-brother, expulsed. His parents are JW in my congregation. His fleshly sisters never visited or talked him in the last 20 years. He, bitterly, refused any contact with me.
Next are real situations I’ve personally seen in several congregations.
·        Three fleshly brothers and their mother are JW. One of the brothers was expulsed and the family cut off all the contact. Over time, the mother developed a severe disease and now, the Christians brothers phoned the disfellowshipped to get his help taking care of the mother. Fortunately, he agreed. But who could reproach him if, in turn, he would have said to the other brothers: “it is your business.” ·        One young witness is expulsed and leave his parent’s home. Over time, get married and has children. The father is JW but the mother is not. Fifteen years later, when visiting the parents, the father (the JW) stays in the kitchen while the rest of the family have the mail together. The wife (no JW) is a wonderful woman but doesn’t accept a religion with this extreme position. ·        A young sister is expulsed. During 40 years! her parents have no contact with her. Only she sporadically phone home, but the father refuses to answer, only the mother. Who could reproach her if now, when the parents are getting older she in turn refuses to take care of them? ·        A brother is an elder in the congregation. His son has been recently expulsed. For economic reasons the father has allowed his son and grandson to live with them. When our brother walk with his grandchildren sometimes his son (expulsed) walk with them and is seen by the congregation. The body of elders removed him because he has relationship with expulsed relatives. What should he do? When walk with his grandchildren and the father of them approaches, should he escape with the grandchildren? ·        An expulsed son get married and has children. His mother is JW. When her son was a JW she used to phone him when he was on a work trip. As she continues showing this concern the elders refused to approve her as auxiliary pioneer. Sometimes our sister visit her son to see her grandchildren. The elders have informed her about the convenience to stay in the street when visiting the grandchildren. The wife of our ex-brother believes we all are fanatics. And a lot more!
I repeat. I’m sure the experiences about expulsed people getting motivation to come back for our lack of contact are true. What It happens is that I’ve not seen any of these kind of situations, but the opposite.
Summarizing.
Why 1 Co 5 don’t say “stop keeping company with anyone called a brother, except when they are relatives”? Because it wasn’t necessary. Because there are plenty of verses teaching us the appropriate behavior with our families.
And the opposite is true. Why don’t mention, for example (Eph 6:2) “Honor your father and your mother, except if they are disfellowshipped”? Because God wait from us the use of “soundness of mind.” (Ti 2:12)
The verses, mainly 1Co 5, talking about our treatment with expulsed persons, should be understood at the light of many other verses, in this way indicating we should show natural affection to our relatives.
Well. I think so, but if any of you have any advice to focus this matter better, please, it’ll be welcome!
 
 
 

Melinda.
Always I read your commentaries, I just simply react: (Acts 26:28) “In a short time you would persuade me to become . . ."  your follower
 

And even in the first century Christian congregation, the apostles delegated the work of social services to the ministerial servants so they could devote themselves to preaching and teaching and shepherding.  But as Arauna and others have pointed out social services such as seeing that the widows  did not starve was a "necessary business".  (Some even sacrificed their properties to help those visiting Jerusalem.)
*** it-2 p. 409 Minister ***
An example of the principle governing this arrangement may be found in the action of the apostles when problems arose as to the distribution (literally, the service, di·a·ko·niʹa) of food supplies made daily to those Christians in need at Jerusalem. Stating that it would not be ‘pleasing for them to leave the word of God’ to concern themselves with administration of material food problems, the apostles instructed the disciples to “search out for yourselves seven certified men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary business; but we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry [di·a·ko·niʹai] of the word.” (Ac 6:1-6) This was the principle; but it does not necessarily hold that the seven men selected were, in this case, not qualified as “older men” (pre·sbyʹte·roi), for this was not a normal or regular situation but a special problem that had arisen, one of a rather delicate nature due to the feeling that discrimination existed because of nationality. Since it affected the entire Christian congregation, it was a matter calling for “spirit and wisdom,” and thus the seven men selected may, in fact, have been in a spiritual sense “older men.” But they were now taking on temporarily an assignment of work such as that which “ministerial servants” might normally handle. It was business that was “necessary” but not of the same importance as “the ministry of the word.”
I am not as good at "charging" scriptures as Comfort is, but I am thinking of this scripture right now : "Let the dead bury the dead, but you go away and declare abroad the kingdom of God". (Luke 9:59,60)  In other words let those who are not conscious of their spiritual needs look after the mundane needs of others of similar attitude. Nothing should crowd out our main spiritual activities. Let them (the refugees) use up the designated authorities for this; but at the same time not deadening our consciences. Where we can help we would but not making it our main focus or letting it distract us. (We are not encouraging people to become "rice Christians".)
(1 Corinthians 2:6) Now we speak wisdom among those who are mature, but not the wisdom of this system of things nor that of the rulers of this system of things, who are to come to nothing.
These designated authorities are to come to nothing.  They are spiritually dead right now as they care nothing about Jehovah's purpose.  Let them look after the mundane things; true Christians focus on the urgent work of helping others get the real life that is promised.
 

I totally agree with all statements made above.  I have also had one very needy person (could not read or write from Iraq) who monopolized a lot of my time and later found fault with other sisters who did not do the same..... So I learnt through hard experience that we must focus on  "spiritual enrichment " first.
Because we really care, people can see this and take advantage.  Most other churches only focus on "social injustices" and these type of issues by having food banks etc.   I have had people directly ask me if we have "social assistance" because they think all Christian churches focus only on this.
This charity in itself is wonderful - but these Christians have not been given the job by Jehovah as the "faithful and discreet slave" to dispense spiritual food to the rest of the world. All of us has this important commission as those " who are grabbing the skirt of the Jew".   So I now try to imitate them by being "faithful" and 'discreet' - using good judgment regarding focus (and even your own safety) - in these communities. 
Many of them have been traumatized by war (or the way their society operates) and are truly pitiful - but they have no spiritual need.  Most come from communities where a standard of life (the family gold and how much you can pay for a wife) is important.  So we must learn how they think and learn to distinguish who wants "things" and who truly has a spiritual need. 
I have found some (mostly women) who cannot focus on a study because they have just too many emotional stresses because of extreme poverty. Women tend to show this kind of stress very quickly and some have husbands who beat them etc.  In these cases I have helped them fill out forms to get the appropriate social services. However,  I am very careful to come between a husband and wife because we cannot (by helping) be blamed for things that go wrong afterward - so I give only emotional support in these cases.

Arauna.

I subscribe your commentaries. The Watchtower recommendations about helping refugees in material sense should be seen with balance. Yes, Jesus and apostles helped poor people even with money (Jn 13:29).

My experience in this field has to do with a “fight” with my wife. She is all heart. Any refugee, or newcomer to our country she tries to help them with forms, with social counsel and so. Yes, obviously these people react with appreciation, as I would do in similar circumstances. But let me be crystal clear. Only ONE of these persons consume an enormous quantity of time (for me, most valuable than money). I mean, helping with official papers, doctors, hospitals, social rights, understanding of local law… Believe me, ONE person, ONE family, consumes a lot of resources. Well, please, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying no help, or a merely testimonial help. But we’ve found more useful to address these people to social services. They have more skills, more time and more resources than us.

Even more, we avoid the situation (very common) that these people showing interest in our message only because need material help.

Please, again, I’m not saying that we should only preach them without provide material help. But I wish to point out the same as Arauna: balance

Arauna.

I subscribe your commentaries. The Watchtower recommendations about helping refugees in material sense should be seen with balance. Yes, Jesus and apostles helped poor people even with money (Jn 13:29).

My experience in this field has to do with a “fight” with my wife. She is all heart. Any refugee, or newcomer to our country she tries to help them with forms, with social counsel and so. Yes, obviously these people react with appreciation, as I would do in similar circumstances. But let me be crystal clear. Only ONE of these persons consume an enormous quantity of time (for me, most valuable than money). I mean, helping with official papers, doctors, hospitals, social rights, understanding of local law… Believe me, ONE person, ONE family, consumes a lot of resources. Well, please, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying no help, or a merely testimonial help. But we’ve found more useful to address these people to social services. They have more skills, more time and more resources than us.

Even more, we avoid the situation (very common) that these people showing interest in our message only because need material help.

Please, again, I’m not saying that we should only preach them without provide material help. But I wish to point out the same as Arauna: balance

Arauna.

I subscribe your commentaries. The Watchtower recommendations about helping refugees in material sense should be seen with balance. Yes, Jesus and apostles helped poor people even with money (Jn 13:29).

My experience in this field has to do with a “fight” with my wife. She is all heart. Any refugee, or newcomer to our country she tries to help them with forms, with social counsel and so. Yes, obviously these people react with appreciation, as I would do in similar circumstances. But let me be crystal clear. Only ONE of these persons consume an enormous quantity of time (for me, most valuable than money). I mean, helping with official papers, doctors, hospitals, social rights, understanding of local law… Believe me, ONE person, ONE family, consumes a lot of resources. Well, please, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying no help, or a merely testimonial help. But we’ve found more useful to address these people to social services. They have more skills, more time and more resources than us.

Even more, we avoid the situation (very common) that these people showing interest in our message only because need material help.

Please, again, I’m not saying that we should only preach them without provide material help. But I wish to point out the same as Arauna: balance

The best help - gift -  we can give anyone is to teach them about Jehovah!   It lifts them out of despair and gives them hope  for a future - something to look forward to!   Many live in poverty (with its associated crime and ignorance) and realize there is no way they will ever get out of their circumstances - they do not have the education or money or opportunities..to get out of their country or circumstances...  Some fathers start to drink/use drugs with the little money they earn and increase the suffering of their families because they are desperate and do not know the way out.  (I lived 48 years in Africa before moving to Europe and later in America - now in Sweden).  I saw such extreme poverty that I was stunned by it... and realized that only the message of Jehovah can give hope for a future life.
We are very materialistic in the West!  Jehovah promises us to come out of Armageddon only with our "life" - no other things.  What is the most precious gift we have - it is our life!  I think the very poor and deprived sometimes understand this more than affluent people do!  (This is why affluent people make issues of very small things because they are not wondering where their next meal is coming from for their family!) When I see the smiles of our brothers in Africa, and know that many of them only have the minimum to survive, and yet they have such joy! ... my heart is happy to know that someone took the time to teach them the truth!
I  worked amongst Arab speaking refugees in America - sometimes more than 100 hours and spent some 30 to 40 additional hours helping them with translations and filling out forms etc. ... and I have come to the conclusion that some just want "social help"  and focus more on material things.  They are not really searching for the "truth".  Some have a spiritual need but they are not prepared to let go of their "wants"  to reach out for the promises that Jehovah can give them. They are not spiritual people  but "fleshly".  They evaluate everything in only fleshly terms.  Of course we must teach them this but sometimes they just want to  "take" more than "give".  Because witnesses are so 'giving' these people can become predators.   So we must be careful to keep the right focus - first on spiritual help.   This is why it is wise to look after our own brothers and sisters first - and then reach out to others with "social works."
To be a truly Christian person we will not hold back kindness when it is possible to give it - but the most precious gift is the truth!  Of course (if it is in your power to do something do it).  I wrote letters for people who could not speak the language to get better housing or helped them to reduce bills ... I gave some help which does not involve money... and this giving spirit demonstrated to them the Christian way of thinking - to help others at sacrifice to self.  To give 'time' to help others.  But the focus of our time should be spent on teaching others the truth.  Our time is the most precious commodity we have!
Oh, I wanted to add another thought:   The witnesses are preaching in so many languages now that most people on earth can be reached in their own language!  Those who are living in "closed" societies - such as muslim countries where a bible is not allowed - these nations are now being shaken!  So these refugees are now coming out and being contacted with the truth!
I preach here in the streets giving out tracts.  Some come to me - and ask questions!   I make sure I show them how different we are to other Christians so they have a solid basis to go and think about... and later talk to the Witnesses again.  I feel about it this way - they are getting a Witness - very few are going to listen - but all need to get an opportunity!
Jehovah will resurrect those who are asleep in death - those who never had contact with the truth.  Many were good people and had a good conscience!  Jehovah is just and will not pass anyone by that may be a good future citizen of his Government. We must now focus on getting the "precious things of the nations"  out of the vicious world which will soon collapse!

Sometimes I have felt sorry for the majority of the population of the world, who (over the centuries) have never even heard of Christianity, not to mention that, even today, it's possible that most of the people on the earth have still really never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, we still trust that Jehovah and Christ have taken all this into consideration for the time of judgment and, perhaps more importantly, throughout the time of resurrection. So this is not about who will survive Armageddon, and who won't; it's merely about the wonderful advantages of knowing about the teachings of Jesus and the freedom to make changes in your life based on taking these teachings to heart. Most of the world may not have the freedom to take advantage of true Christianity even if they have heard of it. Another large portion of the earth has heard about historical Christianity, and wouldn't go anywhere near it because of its terrible reputation for violence, deception and theft of resources. They won't give it the benefit of the doubt.
But even for persons who fall into that last category, there is hope that many more will benefit from exposure to Christian ideas and ideals -- even under the worst of circumstances. The latest study edition of the Watchtower (May 2017) nailed it in the timely article "Helping 'Foreign Residents' to 'Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing.'" Note:
*** w17 May p. 3 par. 2 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
Worldwide, refugees who have fled their homes because of war or persecution now number over 65,000,000—the highest ever recorded.
The footnote expands on that idea:
*** w17 May p. 3 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
In this article, we use the term “refugees” to denote those who have been displaced—whether across national borders or within their own country—by armed conflict, persecution, or disaster. According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), today “1 in every 113 people” worldwide is “forcibly displaced.”
Nearly 1% of the world's population!
Granted that this article is primarily about how we treat our spiritual brothers and sisters who are refugees. And I know that some have criticized us for focusing almost exclusively on other Witnesses, instead of ALL persons. (Even though I'd guess that non-JWs don't criticize each other for choosing their favorite charities.) Scripturally, there is nothing wrong with primarily taking care (materially) of our family, and after that those "related to us in the faith." And I think it's also true that even giving primarily to Witness refugees, will still give a good witness that some groups are much better than others at 'taking care of their own.'
(1 Timothy 5:7, 8) . . .. 8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.
(Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
One thing I like about the article is the balance. The bulk of the article is about ways in which we as JWs can help out refugees in material practical ways. Of course, there are a few paragraphs on spiritual support, too. In the past we've seen the same basic idea presented, but often with only a generic statement about material support and very few practical ideas for what we can do materially. This article talks about helping persons not just with providing food, clothes, shelter, but also with transportation, government paperwork, learning the language, applying for jobs, driver licenses, etc.
I think a lot of persons will also appreciate that the paragraphs on "spiritual support" included emotional support with spiritual support. I thought these two paragraphs were especially useful:
*** w17 May pp. 6-7 pars. 15-16 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
15 More than material assistance, refugees need spiritual and emotional support. (Matt. 4:4) Elders can help by obtaining literature in the language of the refugees and by helping them contact brothers who speak their language. Many refugees have been torn away from their tight-knit extended families, communities, and congregations. They need to sense Jehovah’s love and compassion among their fellow Christians. Otherwise, they may be drawn to unbelieving relatives or compatriots who can relate to their culture and experiences. (1 Cor. 15:33) By making them feel fully accepted in the congregation, we have the privilege to share with Jehovah in “protecting the foreign residents.”—Ps. 146:9.
16 As with young Jesus and his family, refugees may not have the option of returning to their homeland as long as their oppressors remain in power. Further, as notes Lije, “many parents who saw family members raped and murdered cannot bear to bring their children back to where those tragedies occurred.” To help those who have experienced such trauma, brothers in lands receiving refugees need to have “fellow feeling, brotherly affection, tender compassion, and humility.” (1 Pet. 3:8) Persecution has caused some refugees to become withdrawn, and they may feel ashamed to talk about their suffering, especially in the presence of their children. Ask yourself, ‘If I were in their position, how would I like to be treated?’—Matt. 7:12
The article reminds us that we should be known for being concerned with good works, not just the preaching work. This fits a lot of ideas that have been mentioned in the recent past showing how sometimes doing good for persons in a material way, really is a spiritual work, and can be related to our sacred service. 

Yes. All of Jehovah's and Jesus's instructions are perfect, without error. So in view of that, how much, or how far are we to "listen" to the GB/Slaves interpretation if we know the possibility is that it could be wrong. This is why, before we become one of Jehovah's Witnesses we have to answer over 100 questions, and be personally convinced that WE personally believe the answers we give, and that the answer to these questions we personally believe are correct, (or as correct as is humanly possible), otherwise we would not become JWs, obviously.  I do not see anything in those questions, and the Biblical answers to them, that would warrant suspicion. Interestingly, I also do not see any references to 1914 or the  interpretation of the Generation.....

I sometimes watch how Imams preach (online in various countries).  They often preach politically against the West.  They say all Christians are vile -  highly immoral (rampant adultery, fornication,  etc) because anything is allowed and women are free without wearing the hijab.  They believe all Christians are idol worshippers because of the use of images and icons in the church and the kissing of statues etc. And believe that the cross is a pagan symbol (Isa will destroy it in the end of time) and also the trinity is a gross misrepresentation of god because God is almighty and only one!   So Christians are the worst of idolaters, except for the polytheists (India) - they are worse.  Jesus was not the son of god because god did not have sex to bring forth a son and the death of Jesus is a lie!
So when I meet them I tell them that we do not participate in pagan traditions, no statues, idolatry of any kind.  We believe that God is ONE and Jesus is not God.  I also say that we are witnesses of Jehovah and totally different to other Christian religions.  We read the bible daily and therefore obey the bible completely and I add that the above false doctrines do not come from the bible but are pagan doctrines.  I demonstrate how all false religions have a history of violence and war and that Satan was very "smart when he created all the "false " religions which love violence and war - to confuse people. We are pure and clean and do not allow any form of idolatry.  Sometimes I mention that we do not celebrate Xmas, Easter, birthdays etc... and sexually clean!
Next I talk about the government of Jehovah - they also believe in a government and extreme muslims do NOT vote.  So I talk about the way which the government of Jehovah under Jesus as king will come rule and hint at the way that Muslims expect it to come to pass with the "sword."  I then give evidence of the violence in the history of Christians as well as Islam religion and mention that God will bring his government at the time when it is ready for HIM... and not when humans decide to bring the government by fighting (Muslim prophesy).  I also show that Jesus is already ruling invisible in heaven - he is not coming back in the flesh to fight with the sword -  Rev 12: 7- 12 and that his ruler ship began when he threw satan out of heaven and that is why there is such an escalation of violence now - time of the end... This is the sign that the time is short - we need a sign that he is ruling.   I demonstrate that God can read hearts and humans (who cannot read hearts) are not supposed to be judging each as heretics and then execute them (like ISIS) who judge others- even other muslims.  They do not have the right to do God's job for him... they are misled because God is strong enough to do his own job very quickly when the time is right for HIM.   I also show the difference between Sharia Law (which requires blind obedience, one does not have to think much) and the "principals of Jesus...(if one looks at a woman too much you have committed adultery, hate is the same as killing and show that one needs to have self control when one follows the law of self-sacrificing love...inspection of self.  I also show the principles of love in 1Cor 13 - because they only understand love as sexual love and are surprised when one can apply this principled love to ALL relationships.  I read many scriptures so they can see the difference between the Qur'an and the Bible.  They get tears when I read the scriptures on how we should treat each other with tender loving care .... so these are a few of the first things I discuss...  Usually I have a good response... I also have a way to demonstrate that Jesus is a son of god because god has heavenly sons and earthly sons because the word "father means life-giver"  and God is the creator of Jesus and heavenly sons and Adam - earthly son.  He created them (sex did not bring them forth). In this way they are "sons". I like to show the "logic of the bible because the Qur'an is such a mess.
I love this field because it is a challenge but very satisfying because these people think in such a different way than we do... I can go on and on about the differences and how I deal with them....

You said: " There isn't. It's a smear campaign against Islam propagated by some fundamentalist, evangelical groups. "
This sentence informs me you know very little about Islam...... evangelical groups were not around when the first archeologists did research in the middle east - again I refer to great body of work done over 140 years.   Today you will have a hard time to go and do research in Arabia for obvious reasons.......
 
You said in response to the "trinkets" - 
"OK. So where is the archaeological evidence for Allah being identified as the moon god? "  
This sentence above tells me that you do not have much  knowledge about archeology."    
Ancient peoples were very superstitious and carried their "trinkets" with them to ward off evil.  If they carried their trinkets made of "gold"  with them - the logical deduction would be - it had significant meaning. And in ancient times when one had the power to take away another persons symbols of his "gods" - it meant your god was stronger than theirs.
"The smoking gun from their own writings is that Allah cannot be a moon god and that Muslims are not permitted to worship the moon"
If you read the Qur'an you will find that the inconsistencies in the Qur'an is the greatest frustration for someone who is used to the Western way of thinking.  Mohammad wrote as he went along and as things cropped up in his life.  This is why one has to read the Qur'an together with his life history to understand what he was talking about.   Mohammad himself broke 360 idols that were in the Kabbah.  He was trying to get his people away from idol worship (most tribes had many gods and adhered to one of these as their own chief deity - most also worshiped the moon god and his three daughters) but he wanted them to accept the chief God of his tribe as the "only god" and do away with all the "symbols and idols".  This is why he changed the name of his god to
"The Allah" AL- iLAH. which carried the meaning of the 'highest god.'   ... But somehow the symbol of the moon and the stars could not be removed from the collective memory of the tribes - completely.....
The Qur'an was  put together 22 years after Mohammad's death (he could not read and write) and so we have scholars who will prove to you that the Qur'an was a fabrication of his followers... (I personally believe that they definitely tampered with the Qur'an but the main body of sayings came from Mohammad) - but that is another subject.
Also read up about "abrogation".   Certain versus abrogate others.... which is a way of explaining away the inconsistencies.
 
The family of Mohammad originally came from Yemen and brought the black stone with them at about 150 AD.  (This information was not given by the brother above).   They built the Kabbah and it became an important center of worship and trade.  In Yemen his family had lived close to Jewish tribes - so the idea of 'one god' was not alien to his family and some of the 'Sharia laws' are extreme adaptions of the extreme Jewish laws (the Jewish laws which Jesus called  "teachings of men" ).  As a slave trader Mohammad had contact with Catholicism and the Jews and adopted some of their "sayings"   The Zoroastrian belief in the 'Jinn' was already a prevalent belief  - but Mohammad said that Satan was a 'Jinn'.   The idea of prophet hood was not a new idea in his family either...
 
 

If archbishops haven't even read the Qur'an and study the Hadith they will have interfaith religious meetings that we have been in the news lately. They do not have a clue what they are dealing with!   But we will see in the time of the end what religions are approved by Jehovah and which are not.
These Christian leaders do have their own agenda's and it is mostly political...... It is not in vogue at present to criticize this religion as it is deemed "hate speech" and I bet you will not get money for research if you are not part of the establishment at middle-eastern departments of universities - as I said before.  One is naive if you think that universities are all science and no agenda.  It has been proven too many times in the last few years - on most scientific fronts.
.It is not smart to reject a large body of work done by many scholars over more than a hundred and forty years for the researcher that you quoted above -  who tells you what you want to hear.  It is your choice.
What about the connected history if Ishmael (who Mohammad connected himself to)  with half moon crescents!  ... in the bible... You call it 'trinkets' ...  but most archeology scientists first look in the trash of civilizations to find the "trinkets" or pottery shards with pictures or symbols on, to try to understand the culture?  This is a major part of archeology!
Why the moon and stars on their flags and the moon on their minarets?  And what about the verse (which is left out of modern qur'ans) which refer to Allah and his three daughters?  If ever there is a smoking gun it is in their own writings ... apart from all the other ideas which Mohammad picked up from other religions as a merchant traveler selling slaves.. 
The reason why they leave this out is because is proves where the religion originated- it is permitted deceit - if you know what this is in Islam.
They believe all Christians are idolaters because they believe in the Trinity and kiss statues like Mary and Jesus and have a cross on their churches but yet they kiss the black stone when they do the Hajj,  their entire religion was an adaption of a pagan religion (even the rituals are) and they have crescent on their mosques and flags etc.
As the brother above demonstrated in the research he quoted - the names of their God was quoted in Mohammad's father's name and most of his friends.... just like Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar had the name of their god quoted in their name.
So what kind of a scientist are you quoting?

I have read so many books by the earliest and some of the modern archeologists (I had a massive collection of books and had to leave a few behind when I moved to Sweden) about the connection of moon worship to ancient Sumer and the entire middle east - even in Canaan.  I later read the Qur'an, Hadith and Siri  and studied Islam because all the original evidence pointed to this moon worship when I read about Ur and Harran and Tema in Arabia. This is how I started studying the Arabic language and I now preach in the Arabic field - mostly to muslim refugees.
I speak the truth when I say that I absolutely love Arabic speaking people but I also promote TRUTH and I therefore have a desire to free as many people as possible from one of the most oppressive and unjust ideologies/religions around today - which had its origins in pagan and moon worship.
I am sorry to say that in the academic world it has become fashion to bend the research to deny that Allah is in fact the moon god. In fact, most of the middle east departments of most universities in Europe and USA has been taken over by Islamo-philiacs who turn out  fake studies that deny the core beliefs of islam as set out in the Qur'an and Hadith.
In fact, one is not allowed to say anything about Allah and Islam any more because Resolution 18-20 of the UN forbids it! Hence the popularity of the word: Islamophobia.  I watch all the news about developments in this field because Islam is part of Babylon the Great and will soon be destroyed.  30,000 terror attacks that has taken place all over the world since 9/11 and many have not been reported as Islam-inspired attacks in the media because left-politicians want their vote!.  It is the world's largest religion and is riding the beast (just as other religions are controlling the political systems).  Soon the political system will tire of religion and turn against all of them..... because the "security" of the world is being threatened by the radicalized version of most religions - which  is spreading. Far right Christians, who love their guns, voted for Trump!
UNESCO (UN heritage council) has gone so far that they have officially said that Jews and Christians have NO historical connection to Jerusalem! at all!  The historical records that exist to prove this -  are no longer valid!  Look it up on internet and this is definitely not false news!
This is how nutty and crazy the world has become.  But I do not need archeology to prove the connection of the Arabs with Moon worship, here is the biblical proof:  The Bible talks of Ishmael. The mother of Ishmael was Egyptian and Ishmael married an Egyptian woman according to the bible.  Midian and Ishmael were both offspring of Abraham and they sold Joseph to Potiphar in Egypt. They were merchants that moved in caravans. 
Midianites and the Ishmaelite's are mentioned in the Bible as being very close (read Ishmaelite in the insight book)  The 6 sons that Keturah had also intermarried with these tribes and eventually became the Arab peoples.  Keturah was the concubine of Abraham after Sarah died.  She had 6 sons. (Gen 25)  Abraham sent them away with gifts and his son Isaac (by his legitimate wife Sarah) inherited the right to bring forth the messiah from his line of decent.... which would be the true prophet/ messenger of Allah  -  because Jesus  has a genealogy of 4025 years.
Mohammad, who claimed to come from Ishmael, has NO historical genealogy to speak of except the short one given in the bible. So he is THE messenger of god only by his own word.  Mohammad claimed to come from Ishmael to try to legitimize his decent from Abraham and link himself as the last prophet from God - especially when he lived with 3 Jewish tribes in Jathrib (Medina) and wanted them to accept his as a prophet.  He killed between 600-900 of them (as spies) after they rejected his prophet hood.  Muslims today try to claim the Bible has been altered and that Jehovah is ALLAH. (This I can easily refute by the history of islam, the history of the city of Mecca as well as the Bible itself.)
What is interesting is the jewelry worn by the Ishmaelites and Midianites.... and many scriptures in the bible indicate that these peoples were viewed as one tribe because these two names are interchanged often. Judges 8: 22 & 26 speaks of the gold nose rings and the "crescent-shaped" ornaments which seemed to be numerous.  These crescent -shaped ornaments are mentioned in 3 different places in the bible and are two of them specifically associated with Midian and Ishmael. The other scriptures proves how prevalent this worship was in the middle east as Jehovah shows how he hates it.
Moses also wrote in Job 31: 26-28 that it was an act of idolatry to kiss the hand to the moon because this practice was prevalent already in the time of Moses/Job  amongst moon worshipers. Job lived in the land of Uz (Arabia).
 
Another proof about moon worship is the Qur'an itself: I forgot to add information about the fatwah (order to kill) against indian writer: Salman Rushdie.  He wrote in his book about he Satanic verses which refer to Allat, Uzza and Manat:
(Excerpt from Wikipedia for your information:) "[V]ehement protest against Rushdie's book" began with the title itself. The title refers to a legend of the Prophet Mohammad, when a few verses were supposedly spoken by him as part of the Qur'an, and then withdrawn on the grounds that the devil had sent them to deceive Mohammad into thinking they came from God. These "Satanic Verses" are found in verses eighteen to twenty-two in suraht An-Najim of the Qur'an,[14] and by accounts from Tabari, but is seldom mentioned in the first biography of Mohammad by Ibn Ishaq. The verses also appear in other accounts of the prophet's life. They permitted prayer to three pre-Islamic Meccan goddesses: Al-lāt, Uzza, and Manāt—a violation of monotheism.[

.
With my usual lack of humor I present the Draft Copy of the December 2016 issue of the Watchtower which showed a Brother shaving on the cover ... it was changed before being distributed, because the Brothers responsible for the VERY GOOD and accurate article ... disappeared mysteriously.
Dec 2016 Watchtower draft article .pdf
.