Anna

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.

Given the choice, I prefer our little brother than the Indonesian child.

I see from your comments you’ve had really bad experiences as JW, mainly with elders. I confess you one personal secret: I’ve also had some bad experiences, mainly with other elders and C.O. I’m not a psychologist, but a computer developer, but I dare to say that these painful experiences, added to a very strong personality and a deep sense of justice have made you explode. I apologize if something I’ve said is offensive. Believe this wasn’t my intention.

I OFFER YOU A DEAL

You and me serving in the same congregation of Jehovah worshipers… but a little time ago, approximately 1500 before Christ. As you and I share some critical view about the “Organization” it’s easy our conversation resting any given day:

CMP. Have you noticed, JTR, our comrades are always making our live impossible. One day they mutter, the other they worship idols. What kind of people did Jehovah choose? Some Egyptians were much more cultivated and god-fearing!
JTR. Don’t forget the poor food we must to swallow, after 40 years!
CMP. And what’s your opinion about priesthood? They are a clan, a caste.
JTR. And why had Jehovah that forgive the High Priest? He was the direct responsible of a sin causing the dead of thousands of our brother! What lack of judgment! And now his sons are the new priesthood! Really, after so many errors I can’t understand God continues using this regrettable family.
CMP. Hey! Here he comes a messenger with news from the results from Balaam affair. Perhaps Jehovah is expressing via this foreign prophet a message revealing his opinion about this people. 
 
…and do you want to know, JTR, the opinion of Jehovah about that persons causing so much problems, erring so much, after almost 40 years?

·        (Nu 24:5, 6, 9) “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, Your tabernacles, O Israel!  Like the valleys they have extended a long way, Like gardens by the river, Like aloes that Jehovah has planted, Like cedars by the waters …. Those blessing you are blessed, And those cursing you are cursed     Dear JTR, I try to share the same opinion that Jehovah about His people. Yes, full of imperfections, sometimes needing correction and discipline. But, after all, God loves His people. I want to belong this people. In spite the errors I’m the first to point out, I love this people, they are my brothers.
 
Quoting Jehovah’s words, as for me, in spite a lot of errors I can see in these persons, I will never curse this people, my people!

@biddy2331@gmail.com Please see the site guidelines above. 
Not sure what religion you are... however can you see where the Catholics on here would also want me to ban their apostates?
That could get endless...
Facebook for example doesn't ban Catholic apostates (aka Protestants) and neither do I.
 

Agree with this statement, but the picture slogan accompanying it is pure...drivel. If that is not a contradiction in terms!

Yes, precisely. But we know it shouldn't be like this. There was a talk a few years ago at our assembly, you may have heard it too, which kind of addressed this problem.  The talk was "Is your conscience truly guided by Bible principles" The brother used a few nice illustrations, one of them was about a coffee machine. You can program it to have coffee ready at a certain time in the morning and so when you come down you can smell the aroma and go "Oooh, that smell of coffee!"  But will you think or say "what a good little coffee machine for making that coffee!" ? Probably not. However, if you come down and see your wife/husband lovingly made you a fresh cup themselves (which ever way they did it is irrelevant to the point) you will most likely appreciate the gesture. This is the difference between a programmed situation and one which was done voluntarily, out of love and the goodness of the heart. Similarly, because we are not programmed, the way we act reveals to Jehovah our true feelings.  The other illustration was about a car and a bus. He said that to get to a certain destination, we can either be passengers on a bus or the drivers of a car. The bus is on fixed time and is driven by someone else. How the bus driver drives is up to him, he could be speeding, running over old ladies etc. However if you are the driver of a car, you control the situation.
So he kind of compared Law/rules to the rider on a bus, and principles to the driver of a car. And this is the point I really liked: If we live by law, Jehovah knows you are obedient, and that is good. However, if we live by principles, Jehovah knows a lot more about our person, it reveals our heart; our love for him and the intensity of our desire to please him. Romans 12:2,
We are no longer under many laws/rules and that is good. Laws are time specific and situation specific, however principles are good anywhere, anytime. We should not be looking for a rule or law on a matter, but seek Jehovah's view and standards.
Jehovah treats us like adults, he lets us drive the car, he does not have us drive the bus like children. However, some evidently prefer to ride the bus! Hebrews 5:11-14

Yes, precisely. But we know it shouldn't be like this. There was a talk a few years ago at our assembly, you may have heard it too, which kind of addressed this problem.  The talk was "Is your conscience truly guided by Bible principles" The brother used a few nice illustrations, one of them was about a coffee machine. You can program it to have coffee ready at a certain time in the morning and so when you come down you can smell the aroma and go "Oooh, that smell of coffee!"  But will you think or say "what a good little coffee machine for making that coffee!" ? Probably not. However, if you come down and see your wife/husband lovingly made you a fresh cup themselves (which ever way they did it is irrelevant to the point) you will most likely appreciate the gesture. This is the difference between a programmed situation and one which was done voluntarily, out of love and the goodness of the heart. Similarly, because we are not programmed, the way we act reveals to Jehovah our true feelings.  The other illustration was about a car and a bus. He said that to get to a certain destination, we can either be passengers on a bus or the drivers of a car. The bus is on fixed time and is driven by someone else. How the bus driver drives is up to him, he could be speeding, running over old ladies etc. However if you are the driver of a car, you control the situation.
So he kind of compared Law/rules to the rider on a bus, and principles to the driver of a car. And this is the point I really liked: If we live by law, Jehovah knows you are obedient, and that is good. However, if we live by principles, Jehovah knows a lot more about our person, it reveals our heart; our love for him and the intensity of our desire to please him. Romans 12:2,
We are no longer under many laws/rules and that is good. Laws are time specific and situation specific, however principles are good anywhere, anytime. We should not be looking for a rule or law on a matter, but seek Jehovah's view and standards.
Jehovah treats us like adults, he lets us drive the car, he does not have us drive the bus like children. However, some evidently prefer to ride the bus! Hebrews 5:11-14

I felt very sorry for the duck that was about to be taped.

JTR, thank you for the equations. First I should mention that I used to be a professional translator and proof reader, just letting you know so that you are aware that I do at least half way know what I am talking about. Yes, translation, the real thing, is a lot more complex than people who speak only one language realize. This is not to put anyone who speaks only one language down, it's just to explain that unless you know another language, it may be difficult to understand just how complex it is to translate, and that it's not just about translating words, but about convening the RIGHT meaning in the target language. Don't think Google translator. If you have ever read something translated into English by Google, you will know what I mean.
Now I am assuming that when Geoffrey Jackson and others elaborate on the importance of reaching the heart of someone with the use of their mother tongue, then that means that the translation should be of superior quality. You will probably agree that the source language we JW's usually translate from is English. (There are some exceptions, as in life stories from other countries etc.). Anyway, not meaning to offend any native English speakers, English is a relative easy language to learn, when compared with many other languages. I know, since English is not my mother tongue. Now for a translator, who obviously speaks more than one language, it is more important to know the target language better than the source language, preferably the target language should be the one he knows from birth. Some have the privilege of growing up in a bilingual home (or even multilingual) where both parents speak a different language and so then the translator may speak both languages equally well, but this is quite rare since one language usually dominates over the other. So when we think of the source language as being English, and the target language as being the native language of the translator, then you might begin to understand that it is quite possible for a quality translation of the target language to be produced. We have to assume of course that the translator is well educated in their mother tongue as I am sure you have met plenty of native English speakers who can't put an intelligent sentence together nor can they spell to save their life. One mustn't forget invaluable aids such as a Thesaurus in the target language. This is an invaluable aid, at least for me, especially when I need to find an alternative word to better express what the passage is saying and my memory has had a relapse. The interesting thing is that one sentence can be said in so many different ways and also convey the correct meaning, so much so, that sometimes the translator is faced with a dilemma to have to chose which sentence should ultimately be used. I could go on and on about the joys of translation, but the point I am trying to make is that; it is quite possible to produce good quality translations in a short period of time for free if the translator's target language is their native language, and if they are dedicated and willing to do it for Jehovah. I can attest to that regarding at least one language, my mother tongue, the translation of which is of native quality. One last thing to remember is that we ARE an international multilingual brotherhood so there is always going to be plenty of native speakers in almost every language.
P.S I have not read Jason BeDuhn's book but I have heard he made some favorable comments about the NWT. Oh and I have read the Elders manual.
 

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this.
My issues are these:
Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant?
Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement)  has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide  how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved.
Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this.
My issues are these:
Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant?
Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement)  has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide  how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved.
Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

I was trying to comment under JTR Jr comments
Hello JTR Jr

Yes, “devil is in the details”.

As always, your comments are full of vivid feelings reflecting your worry about injustice. I personally ignore if our position regarding disfellowshipping has to do with the hate Russian authorities have against us. Certainly, the world under the wicked one hates us, this is true, but you’re right in mentioning that, sometimes, we add to this hate.

For example, when I was a child I learnt the truth without my parents. I grow up alone as JW. As soon I learnt about idols I took some family photos, scissors and I just left the heads, removing medals, crosses and other religious symbols. Well, obviously, I “won persecution” for myself. But this persecution wasn’t for defending the truth, but for my fanatical behavior.

In the same way, perhaps some sufferings we’re experiencing could have its roots in some dogmatic position. I repeat, JTR Jr, I have no reason to think this is the case in Russia.

Regarding we’re reflecting some pharisaic attitude… well, this deserves a complete new topic.

(My bold above) "rules" I suppose I mean in the sense of legislating specific circumstances. These to me are more guidelines than rules.
As for your expanded scenario, once again it demostrates why there are no rules to govern that situation because there are too many variables unmentioned.
However, as you have quoted, there is a clear rule to govern what happens when a serious sinner is unrepentant and that is described at 1 Cor.5:11. Now, how individuals are to balance the respecting of a judicial decision with the aim of gaining a brother against any scriptural requirements to discharge familial responsibility is definitely for those individuals to decide.
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.
Regarding the effectiveness of such a disciplinary measure, let us not forget that in respect of the actual case prompting Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, the necessary reaction in the case of the sinner was produced in that repentance was demonstrated and restoration accomplished. (2Cor.2:6-11).  
This I find a bit confusing. Are you saying you have never been involved in a reinstatement?

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!
 
 
 

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this.
My issues are these:
Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant?
Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement)  has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide  how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved.
Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

What about the beard?

I believe the problem is completely resolved by the Bible itself. You gave several examples of the ways in which situations either become an kind of announcement that we are fanatics, or that we have no natural affection, or that situations are created where we would need pharisaic rules to deal with all the many different possibilities. And I agree that many do come back after disfellowshipping, but that's just as much due to a method that any psychiatrist knows is the same as emotional blackmail. The combination of emotional blackmail, guilt, and personal ego, end up playing as much of a role as spiritual concern. There is also the factor of how humans love to judge and love the feeling of superiority and self-rightousness that they get through judging. The opportunity to shun a disfellowshipped person is something that some might even gloat about to themselves. 
(Luke 18:11) . . .The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 
 
Yet, the Israelites were given a law that supposedly provides the foundation for the Christian practice of expelling someone from the congregation. I don't think we are starting in the right place if we think like this. We need to start with the words of Jesus himself. Remember that it was Jesus who said that expelling one's wife for any reason was a concession that Moses gave due to their hard hearts.
(Matthew 19:7, 8) . . .They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 
 
But Jesus did not preach that we should have hard hearts. The Jewish law said that there was to be no punishment for a man who beat his slave to death as long as the slave suffered for more than one day before dying. (Exodus 21:20, 21)  The Jewish law allowed for the beating of children with a literal rod. The Jewish law allowed for chopping off hands and gouging out eyes and knocking out teeth.
But now we have a different kind of law that is written on our hearts. The entire law itself can be summed up in just a few words:
(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Also, Luke 10:28)  . . .  keep doing this and you will get life.”
(John 15:17)  “These things I command you, that you love one another.
(Romans 13:8-10) . . .Do not owe anything to anyone except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. 9 . . . whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.
(Galatians 5:14) . . .For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 
(James 2:7, 8) . . .Do they not blaspheme the fine name by which you were called? 8 If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 
(Matthew 7:12) 12 “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.
 
So I think we need to keep that primary point from all those verses in mind, when we try to understand what was going on in the earliest Christian congregations. So I'll give it a try: 
Matthew 18:7 as you quoted above says that the "expelled" person becomes just like a man of the nations and a tax collector. In other words, they are no longer thought of as "family" (brothers) or as "someone related to us in the faith." But they are now just like everyone else in the world that we generally might avoid except when necessary to speak with hospitably, or do business with. But does this refer to a temporary or a final situation? Of course, Jesus set the perfect example by associating with tax collectors, and spoke with persons who rejected him. Ideally, a person of the nations would be someone that we would continue to see as our neighbor. Within months after this comment by Jesus in Matthew 18, people of the nations would now be desired to join with them again as those related to them in the faith. Also note that Jesus used the same pairing of "tax collectors" and "people of the nations" in the following way: (Matthew 5:43-48) 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  When we consider the logistics of disfellowshipping in the first century congregations, we should remember that some met in homes where the social consideration of hospitality was the key, where one could invite many people in, but if you were not invited you would not dare to "invade" the house. The size of the houses of most Christians would probably result in a much closer, more intimate atmosphere, and were probably usually timed to include the meal, with an exception made for the Memorial celebration. Therefore, if a person was invited in, it would be quite impossible not to associate in a close and friendly manner, which might provide the reason that some would not be invited into the house, "not even eating with such a one." Note this situation at Matthew's house (which may have been bigger than average, of course): (Matthew 9:10-13) . . .Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ . . . As congregations began to use larger facilities, people could just come through the door and take a seat: (1 Corinthians 14:23) . . .So if the whole congregation comes together to one place and they all speak in tongues, but ordinary people or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you have lost your minds?  (James 2:2, 3) . . .For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in splendid clothing comes into your meeting, but a poor man in filthy clothing also enters, 3 do you look with favor on the one wearing the splendid clothing and say, “You take this seat here in a fine place,” and do you say to the poor one, “You keep standing” or, “Take that seat there under my footstool”?  With those last two points in mind, now think about a key point that is rarely, if ever, explained according to the context. It's the point about the "rebuke given by the majority:"  (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 now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness. 8 I therefore exhort you to confirm your love for him. 9 For this is also why I wrote to you: to determine whether you would give proof of your obedience in all things. 10 If you forgive anyone for anything, I do also. In fact, whatever I have forgiven (if I have forgiven anything) has been for your sake in Christ’s sight, 11 so that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs. The interesting point here in 2 Cor 2:5-11 is that the context is about how Paul says that "we [Paul and fellow apostles, we could assume] are not masters [governors] over your faith." (1:23-2:4) Paul says that he expects that most would agree with him in the matter of forgiveness, and that this is why he mentioned the word "obedience" (see verse 9). I think this should remind us that there would be certain situations where Paul might expect everyone to agree but that this might also mean that everyone was NOT always expected to agree. In fact Paul had already dealt with this same idea of how not everyone would be in agreement with direction that came from letters from Paul: (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother. In 2 Thessalonians, the issue was withdrawing from those who were walking disorderly (3:6) and not in agreement with the instructions given by Paul in this same letter which we now know is inspired Scripture (and by extension, any apostles with the same authority to instruct). 
There is never any talk about the specific amount of time that goes by between giving a rebuke for an offense by withdrawing our hospitality and when the person is received back. A rebuke has nothing to do with trying to judge whether the person is repentant, or how much time had gone by. A rebuke can be a one-time thing. Perhaps it was never up to the elders to judge repentance. Perhaps it was not up to the elders at all, but was a matter of every individual's conscience, after hearing the instruction and guidance that Paul gave. (And no doubt the elders would provide good guidance based on showing the same spirit Paul was showing and which he made clear in his letters.) But these things give us the idea that it was still up to each individual as to whether they might agree with the need to withdraw their hospitality. That's the most likely reason, I'd think, that Paul would speak of the "rebuke of the majority." It could also mean that by the time that a majority of people in the congregation had heard about it and had an opportunity to indicate to the wrongdoer that they were now aware of his or her wrongdoing. If either case, this could just as well be something that was over and done with in a matter of a week or so, or however long it took for a majority of the members to learn of the problem. Also on this matter of timing, some were evidently too willing to continue their withdrawal of hospitality without considering the sadness of the person affected. So Paul had to remind them.
And Paul wasn't all that concerned with the fact that not every conscience would be in agreement, even when Paul knew he was right, and that he was giving the correct counsel for the situation. Paul was writing a letter that was inspired scripture (2 Thess) and he said to continue admonishing someone as a brother if they decided not to follow those instructions. How often do we hear anything like that from any of the governing authorities of religions today?  And they aren't even apostles, and are not even inspired.
It wasn't specifically about whether they were "repentant" but whether they were still practicing the wrongdoing:
(1 Corinthians 5:9, 10) 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.
 
And the other idea from the verse is that the persons they withdraw from are not entirely out of their lives, otherwise they would have to get out of the world, but that they would not mix with them in a friendly hospitable manner as if they were sharing with them in an approving way regarding their conduct.
The point from 2 John about not even saying a greeting is similar, but appears to be taking it even a bit farther because of a specific, dangerous teaching that there never was a real Jesus on the earth. What reason would Christians have to be friendly and hospitable with this person. It was the most insidious teaching that the entire religion was based on a lie. That all of this was being made up by liars and impostors. We might expect that after the apostles died out, but as long as the apostles were alive, they knew that this was the most dangerous of all teachings when all the eye-witnesses of Jesus were dead. The testimony of eye-witnesses and the writings of the literate associates of those eye-witnesses is the very basis for what would be accepted as Christian Scripture. That verse, according to 2 John applies only to that particular form of apostasy or falsehood where Jesus himself is being denied:
(1 John 2:22) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
(2 John 7-10) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 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. 
 

Sorry about the long post. I didn't even get to some of the things I wanted to say. But what I had hoped to do is show that we can't avoid interpreting, and it's always our "foundational" views that color just how we interpret them.
I didn't want to make too much of the distinction between relatives in the flesh and relatives in the faith, because we are all brothers, and that expression should truly mean what it sounds like: that all of us are relatives, now. 
I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side. I'm sure you already know it but our foundation for interpretation is easily seen by one of the first discussions of disfellowshipped relatives in the Watchtower. It first reminds us that we are not allowed to kill our disfellowshipped children because the law of the land forbids it:
*** 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, . . . ”—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.
 
The rest of the article showed some additional cases where the law of the land and/or God's law requires certain types of contact with relatives. For example: not being able to throw minors out of the house, not being able to divorce due to disfellowshipping/apostasy, marriage partners living and eating under the same roof, etc. 
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.
 
Because of cases mentioned such as these certain verses are said not to apply, which appears to be the correct interpretation: 
*** w52 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.
 
When the Watchtower said: "we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws" it gives away the foundation. We are looking for the extent of "sacrifice" that is possible, not the necessary minimum. We are not looking for loopholes to show how much mercy is possible.
I suspect that Percy Chapman (the branch servant in Ontario) wrote this question so that Fred Franz could submit the answer with an already written article. I have no evidence in this case, but I saw evidence in the 1970's that something like this was done for other other QFR's. So it's a bit difficult for me not to read between the lines and see the attitude of Fred Franz coming through. I could just see him giving a talk on he subject and adding "perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia" to that first paragraph. 

This is strong counsel we are speaking of from a source we all respect and accept as part of Jehovah’s teaching – we’re foolish to blow it off. But it is not rules. Detailed scenarios are described because we’re being helped to develop our conscience and use our thinking ability. Every Christian in this truly horrible situation must decide how they will conduct themselves. Surely, no two situations are exactly alike. If they are hard and fast rules, then you get into all the absurd situations, and more, that CMP describes.

Every Christian must apply these sometimes contradictory thoughts as best they can. Keep it to yourself if you know what you do will get some people going. Don’t advertise. Make the onlookers few. Accept that it is possible to lose some privileges if your stand doesn’t square with what others think is right. If that happens, don’t bitch about it. Take that, too, as discipline. “Maybe I should do it differently,” say to yourself. But if the answer, upon prayerful thought, is no, then suck it up and carry on. Don’t go saying the elders are wrong. Just suck it up.


 

lol.

A couple of Jehovah's Witnesses were in the vicinity last week and I used the opportunity to get the latest magazine, as I hadn't seen you for a little while.
I am studying with a Jehovah's Witness couple.
Check the difference in these two sentences.
 
 

Looks like Linmi and JWI are playing a game 

I've heard you express problems with this word before. I don't have a problem with it because, well, it's a word and it is a fair match for the Greek "a-sel'geia." The word "brazen" is a little dated, but not obsolete. Personally I would have gone with "shameless" because it fits the meaning of the original word as a negated word and "a-selgeia" is negative in the way amoral means without morals, and shameless means without shame. But the original word does include a sense of "strength" or "boldness," which could get lost in the simpler "shameless," where the sense of boldness is not always implied. Greek writers outside the Bible used it often with reference to the same idea that is heard in the cliché or hackneyed phrase: "brazen hussy" (in the sense of "wanton woman" "shameless prostitute").
 
There is another small problem in that it's the third of three primary definitions, which allows for an ambiguity or perhaps a small delay in understanding by a first time reader. But that's not an important issue here.
In any case, it was intended to fix a poor translation in the previous pre-2013 NWT where we used "loose" as in "loose" morals, "loose" conduct. (compare "loose woman" to "brazen hussy.") This is inaccurate, because someone who plays loose with the rules is not necessarily either bold or shameless. It can be like the difference between the archaic meaning of "licentious" and the current meaning. (Archaic: someone who disregards accepted conventions, as in "poetic license" and Modern: unprincipled and promiscuous.) Even the current definition is not quite strong enough to cover the bold/shameless idea of "aselgeia" well enough.
In combination with a couple of contexts about prostitution in the Hebrew Scriptures, I think "brazen" makes for a fair translation of a couple of the ideas is Hebrew, too. In those cases the idea of "boldness" is probably stronger than "shameless" and "brazen" might even be a better word to translate the Hebrew.

Yes, many friends have the view that if they raise an issue, they may seem ungrateful. But really, the GB relies on feedback from the friends. How else are they to know where to make an reasonable adjustment if everyone is quiet, as if everything is fine? There is a difference between being overly critical and voicing genuine concern. The key is, once the concern is voiced, leaving it. It's been brought out into the open, and what happens next should be left with Jehovah.
Interesting. There must have been many more "sisters" with the same question. There is strength in numbers! Although it took decades of perhaps just a few sisters each year bringing up the same question until it finally reached the right ears....

You are probably right, but I still need his reply so I can comment....