Why does the Watchtower still discipline by shunning rather than shepherding as Jesus instructed ?

Question

It is not used as a last resort !

It is used as a standard practice !

Answer 1

Hmmmmm If we sit down and read things that Jesus instructed we will find many things that the Watchtower has .....well lets put it nicely over ruled.Just read in context the entire sermon on the mount...and you will know what I mean.They shun although I don't find this word in scripture anywhere.And what they did describe in scripture was nothing like what they do today in the society.And it is not a last resort.

My youngest daughter was disfellowshiped at barely 17 yrs old both her and her boyfriend.They had not engaged in sexual intercourse and had  improperly touched each other. I am not making lite of their sin but what was the gravity to be handled with such severity was it a last resort? I would like to refer everyone to Chuck Russel's account because this is exactly what happened in our former congregation to our daughter.She was the daughter of just average witnesses who pioneered now and then.No grandparents ,no elders no regular pioneers or ministerial servant's in the family.Although she was not found out she was plagued with a guilty conscious and went voluntarily to the elders.Well it was not a simple matter they asked her all sorts of sexual questions which having been sheltered most of her life until she got this witness boyfriend at 16 she was largely unawaress of these practices and very embarrassed to be with  4 older men and answering such detailed questions.Anyway she was disfellowshiped and embarrassed beyond words.

However one brother the oldest one on the commettie was the grandfather of a young brother and sister that everyone knew and were members of the congregation This young girl had been living with a male school teacher in an apartment in the neighboring town for months at the time of this happening. Her Father was an elder and the son-in-law of the man who was on the commitee .The  young son (her brother) was wild and sowing oats around  different girlfriends everytime you saw him.and living in an apartment with some guys who were also wild and  they had girls staying in the apartment with them from time to time.Everyone knew it

.When the girl (grandaughter of the elder on the committe and daughter of the elder) moved out of state she came home for a visit supposed to have gotten married while out of state (this could have been) and the mother and grandmother had a large baby shower and invited all the sisters Some just excused themselves and dropped off a gift, Others went because they didn't want to offend .Others weren't sure if it were true that she got married so they did not attend .How uncomfortable, is that for the congregation? We didn't know what to do? But why did she not get disfellowshiped ?Publicly reproved?She was living with a man before she left and her brother?Living with guys who were not witnesses and worldly and girls living in the apartment with him. Nothing happened to them not even reproof they continued on coming to meetings now and then going in service 1 time a month and Mom and Dad and Grandma and Grandpa seemed to have no problem with their lifestyle

. When I asked why my daughter was so severly disaplined I was told it was because she was non repentent . Does a  non  repentent  person  go themselves to  the elders and confess ? no one knew only her and the boy and he did not want to go.She( My youngest daughter) has because of this been scared all her life  Her entire social life came to a halt when the witnesses rejected her.You see that is because we lived by their rules.But think of the girl who was with the school teacher she had his family and friends and the young man who also had all the friends in the world would they have lost as much?They wouldn't have been totaly isolated. Chucks story rang so true to me.

\

Answer 2

why the disfellow for some0ne asking too many questions

but never disfellow for those that rape childrne or women in their congregation

interesting

i guess that's what being an elder is all about, oh and being able to carry a brown satchel

i guess the women don't get to have one of those any time soon

...or trosuers

Answer 3

Wow! Another excellent answer by "Chuck."

Any JW who reads his scenario, would have to admit that this could EASILY happen in just about any congregation.

That is the problem when imperfect men decide who has Jehovah's favor, and who should be cut out of the congregation, shunned, slandered and considered to be "good as dead" when Armageddon begins!

"Jesus paid much too high a price for us to pick and choose who should come."  - Casting Crowns.

Answer 4

It is not used as a last resort!  Those who say that only unrepentant ones are disfellowshiped have not sat through the abuses of a committee meeting.....They wanted to know how many sexual experiences and if I enjoyed them..they wanted to know positions etc......

Wake up kiddo's...Give your life to Jesus and stop following the whims and traditions of Man.

Answer 5

Jesus shepherded those who listened to his voice, and not those that rejected it. You're going beyond the things the things that are written, and you aren't even considering the things that have been taught in the scriptures.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching

Why does Paul say this in the name of the lord Jesus Christ? Why does he say to keep away from every brother who does not live according to the teaching?

Are you rejecting this scripture? It looks like you are.

Don't get mad at us because we go by the scriptures.

Answer 6

Becuase Jesus nor the Father is in or around the watchtower.

Answer 7

I have seen people cry and beg and STILL get disfellowshipped. It is ALL on the whim of the elders on the Judicial Committee! It is taught to JWs as being a "last resort", but that is not the case at all. It depends largely on who you are, how old you are, how many in your family are JWs, how many in your family that still goes to the same congregation as you do, and whether or not you're popular in the congregation. The elders' (especially the presiding overseer) #1 concern is maintaining the illusion of "peace" within the congregation. I have heard these exact words (except for the "illusion" part) come from my own presiding overseer's mouth. "Peace in the congregation"! So, it's not always about someone's sinning, whether or not they're repentant, or whether or not there is no other choice. If you are a JW who has little or no family in the congregation and you commit a sin that involved or somehow affects another JW in your congregation who has a lot of family there, you can almost rest assured that you WILL be disfellowshipped! On the flip side, if you are the one who has a lot of family and the one whom you sinned against does not, you are likely to get off with a "reproof". I have seen it too many times with circumstances almost identical having opposite outcomes due to how the congregation as a whole would view it or be affected by it! The elders' job is to keep the average JW enchanted by the illusion that all matters are directed by God to the benefit of everyone in the congregation.

Imagine this;

Brother "Perfect", an elder for many years in the Witnessville congregation is married and has three teenage children and one 9 year- old, plus a wife who has been a full time pioneer since she was in her early teens. His biological brother is also an elder in the same congregation, and he is married and has a couple of kids. These two brothers' elderly parents are still alive and kicking and attend almost all of the meetings, and all are outstanding examples in the congregation and loved by all.

In the back of the Kingdom Hall we have sister "Hardluck". She lived a troubled life until her late twenties when she gave birth to a little girl. She has been married and divorced a couple of times and isn't really sure who her daughter's father really is. It never mattered much, though, because she managed to raise her daughter on her own and has discovered "instant friends" through the JW organization. Although single parenthood has kept her busy, she manages to make a few meetings a month at the constant behest of her new friends there. Her daughter has a few emotional issues, but all in all is a good kid and growing through her teens uneventfully.

One day, Brother Perfect is disturbed to hear from another elder in the congregation that Sister Hardluck's daughter has accused his 17 year- old ministerial servant son of prolonged and progressive sexual harassment! She goes so far as to say that he groped her and tried to remove clothing from her! Brother Perfect's son is confronted and denies the accusations. Sister Hardluck is warned that her daughter should not falsely accuse upstanding members of the congregation because it is slander and she could be reprimanded! Before long, word gets out among the rest of the congregation that Sister Hardluck's daughter is a trouble- maker, and all of Brother Perfect's family and close friends, which is most of the congregation, start to avoid Sister Hardluck and her troublesome daughter!

Not long afterward, Sister Hardluck's daughter comes forth with more allegations against Brother Perfect's son, only this time she has video evidence taken on a camera phone! Despite the solid evidence against him, Brother Perfect's son still denies the first allegation and claims that the event that was captured on the camera phone was an isolated incident that he's so sorry for and will never repeat again. Since the incident is not known to anyone else in the congregation (yet), they privately reprove him. He temporarily loses his position as a ministerial servant which affects him emotionally, and the congregation is left wondering if that Sister Hardluck's "troublesome" teen had anything to do with it. They even start to pick apart how she dresses, promoting the idea that she dresses too "provocatively" and probably led Brother Perfect's son into temptation!

Months later, Brother Perfect's son regains his privileges. A short time after that, Sister Hardluck's daughter is heard yelling at Brother Perfect's son out in the parking lot of the Kingdom Hall. "STOP IT! Get away from me, you creep!" she yells. "A lot of good the reproof did you! Leave me alone! I HATE you!"

By the time word quickly spreads to everyone inside the Kingdom Hall, Sister Hardluck's daughter is coiled up in the fetal position on the ground next to her mom's car crying, and Brother Perfect's son is standing nearby with his arms up as if to indicate that he did nothing. In fact, he says that he just wanted to apologize to her personally for all that's transpired. Shaking their heads, the congregation moves back inside the Hall to leave Sister Hardluck and her troublesome daughter to their misery.

Because of the constant harassment from Brother Perfect's son and the elders' unwillingness to do anything about it, Sister Hardluck and her daughter stop going to meetings. As a result, the congregation assumes that they were never that "spiritual" to begin with and that Brother Perfect's son must have been innocent all along, and now peace in the congregation is restored as per Jehovah's will!

Now put the shoe on the other foot. Sister Hardluck is the one with the son and Brother Perfect has the daughter who is being harassed. There would be such an uproar in the congregation over Sister Hardluck's son doing such horrible things to poor Brother Perfect's daughter. They will blame his upbringing and Sister Hardluck's "reluctance" to be at all the meetings. After the video evidence surfaces, the elders will assume that the first accusation must also have been true and that Sister Hardluck's son lied to and deceived them, therefore he is unrepentant. The goal would be to remove him from the congregation since he has caused so much upset in the congregation. Thus, peace in the congregation is restored as per Jehovah's will...

I know that this was kind of long, but it is, I think, a very good illustration of what I have witnessed with my own eyes and ears in my years as a JW. Take it or leave it- I know what I saw and heard many times over!

Answer 8

Last resort?  I was DF'd WITHOUT a meeting....I just got a phone call from the elders!  I was upset about it at first because I never received any phone calls when I stopped going to meetings or didn't show up for the memorial that year...not ONE word of encouragement ..not even a "sheparding call"... talk about being "stumbled"!   But now I see that it was a blessing!  I don't want any part of an organization that controls it's members with the fear of losing their loved ones...now that I've been out, it's like the blinders have been lifted and I can see how very sinister the WBTS really is!

God is our judge...not a group of men!

Chuck......Thanks for doing all that typing...that's as real as it gets!

Answer 9

This is a concept that is often very misunderstood about Jehovah's Witnesses.  Shunning, which is known as disfellowshipping is always a last resort.  If someone in the congregation commits a wrongdoing the congregation elders go to great lengths to shepherd the person as Jesus did.  If they see their wrongdoing and express the desire to correct their actions they are allowed to remain a part of the congregation.  If the problem is serious, and public knowledge, the person may be placed under what is called public reproof.  An announcement will be made to the congregation that so-in-so is under public reproof, no details will be given, but those who are aware of the situation will know that the problem was not ignored, leaving peace of mind for the congregation.  The only time that a member is disfellowshipped is when they are not willing to change their sinful course.  After the elders have made efforts to shepherd their error by reasoning on the scriptures with the person, and he still continues his willful sinful course then they are disfellowshipped, not so much as a discipline, but as a protection for the rest of the congregation.  This is in accordance with the Bible as shown in 1 Corinthians.

(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”

Answer 10

Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.

To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. Shunning may include disassociating the member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.

To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member. For groups with defined membership criteria, especially based on key behaviours or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership. This is often paired with some form of excommunication.

Some less often practiced variants may seek to:

Remove a specific member from general external influence to provide an ideological or psychological buffer against external views or behaviour. The amount can vary from severing ties to opponents of the group up to and including severing all non-group-affiliated intercourse.

Shunning is usually approved of (if sometimes with regret) by the group engaging in the shunning, and usually highly disapproved of by the target of the shunning, resulting in a polarization of views. Those subject to the practice respond differently, usually depending both on the circumstances of the event, and the nature of the practices being applied. Extreme forms of shunning have damaged some individuals' psychological and relational health. Extreme responses to the practice have developed, mostly around anti-shunning advocacy; such advocates highlight the detrimental effects of many of such behaviors, and seek to limit the practice through pressure or law. Such groups often operate supportive organizations or institutions to help victims of shunning to recover from damaging effects, and sometimes to attack the organizations practicing shunning, as a part of their advocacy.

In many civil societies, kinds of shunning are practiced de-facto or de-jure, to coerce or avert behaviours or associations deemed unhealthy. This can include:

restraining orders or peace bonds (to avoid abusive relationships)

court injunctions to disassociate (to avoid criminal association or temptation)

medical or psychological instructing to avoid associating (to avoid hazardous relations, i.e. alcoholics being instructed to avoid friendship with non-recovering alcoholics, or asthmatics being medically instructed to keep to smoke-free environs)

using background checks to avoid hiring people who have criminal records (to avoid association with felons, even when the crimes have nothing to do with the job description)

These effects are seen as positive by society, though often not by the affected parties.

Effects

Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function.

Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behaviour clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, the group membership seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules are inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or various tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring.

A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents.

Your Resolved QuestionShow me another »

Should shunning be practiced in Religion?

Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.

To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. Shunning may include disassociating the member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.

To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member. For groups with defined membership criteria, especially based on key behaviours or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership. This is often paired with some form of excommunication.

Some less often practiced variants may seek to:

Remove a specific member from general external influence to provide an ideological or psychological buffer against external views or behaviour. The amount can vary from severing ties to opponents of the group up to and including severing all non-group-affiliated intercourse.

Shunning is usually approved of (if sometimes with regret) by the group engaging in the shunning, and usually highly disapproved of by the target of the shunning, resulting in a polarization of views. Those subject to the practice respond differently, usually depending both on the circumstances of the event, and the nature of the practices being applied. Extreme forms of shunning have damaged some individuals' psychological and relational health. Extreme responses to the practice have developed, mostly around anti-shunning advocacy; such advocates highlight the detrimental effects of many of such behaviors, and seek to limit the practice through pressure or law. Such groups often operate supportive organizations or institutions to help victims of shunning to recover from damaging effects, and sometimes to attack the organizations practicing shunning, as a part of their advocacy.

In many civil societies, kinds of shunning are practiced de-facto or de-jure, to coerce or avert behaviours or associations deemed unhealthy. This can include:

restraining orders or peace bonds (to avoid abusive relationships)

court injunctions to disassociate (to avoid criminal association or temptation)

medical or psychological instructing to avoid associating (to avoid hazardous relations, i.e. alcoholics being instructed to avoid friendship with non-recovering alcoholics, or asthmatics being medically instructed to keep to smoke-free environs)

using background checks to avoid hiring people who have criminal records (to avoid association with felons, even when the crimes have nothing to do with the job description)

These effects are seen as positive by society, though often not by the affected parties.

[edit] Effects

Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function.

Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behaviour clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, the group membership seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules are inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or various tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring.

A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy m

Answer 11

I could say the same for all Christian denominations in some form or another.

Answer 12

Hypocrisy.  

Answer 13

Because that's what religion does, they don't give a d**n about doing what's right!

Answer 14

It is really awful to be shunned by who you thought were your brothers and sisters in the Lord...even if you are a Watchtower follower   Can't think of anything that hurts those who say they do love the Lord...than to do this to others.  Regardless of what you believe in.   If a brother or sister has offended then these type of things need to be reconciled with love, honor, and humility!  Jesus would ask it of you, me and all.  No games were played by him...he knows the heart and intents of all.  We should trust him for his divine wisdom in knowing how to treat those we have tried to judge...with his kind of love and honor...

God bless!  

Just my thoughts...

How long does someone have to sit on the sinners bench?

Answer 15

You ask that as if nearly all religions don't behave the exact same way...