Shunning and ex-communication

Title: Shunning and ex-communication
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Revival Doctrines we 'USED TO BELIEVE'	Go to subcategory：

Author	Content

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:25 PMCopy HTML

$%*'`[I am Evil Homer]%*'`@Can someone please tell me what scripture it is that Noel Hollins uses to justify people being treated like scum so that they will supposedly 'turn back to the church',I am still trying to fathom how by the disgusting action of family and friends turning their backs on former members they think this will work..in my own experience it only made me realise how pathetic and cruel it really is,I think they have it ALL wrong,if anything I think it turns people away from EVER wanting to go back..I mean who would want to be 'accepted' back by those that treated us so badly.

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re：Shunning and ex-communication

Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:33 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : I am Evil Homer [Anonymous] 
They have absolutely NO justification for shunning people who leave the GRC.  In fact, there is a strong case from the Bible to do the exact opposite of what the GRC does.
Disfellowshipping versus Shunning
The point of this article will be to show that the Revival Centres' shunning doctrine does not adhere to the Bible. Further, an understanding of congregational practices of first-century Christians in the Jewish culture is necessary for a proper understanding of the scriptures on this matter. 
The primary scripture for consideration is: 
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. -1.Cor. 5:11 (KJV) 
The text is clear that a person with whom the congregation should not mix company is one who is:



"called a brother" (that is, one who professes to be a member of the congregation); and
practicing (unrepentant) fornication (see here for more information on this), greed, idolotry, reviling (insulting), habitual drunkeness, and/or extortion (theft). 
The Revival Centres do not disfellowship greedy persons. 
They do not disfellowship people for many of the things which they themselves class as "idolatry" (for example: materialism, worshipping an organization, etc.). 
On the other hand, The Revival Centres do disfellowship and shun people for: 

no longer claiming to be called a brother/sister. 
discussion of the Bible that brings Revival Centre doctrine into question. 
distribution (and in some cases even possession) of literature written by other Christian and former Revivalists. 
having lunch with a former member, even if the former member professes to be a Christian and was not disfellowshipped for fornication, greed, idolotry, reviling, drunkeness, or extortion. 
(in some cases) attending a service of any other church or religious organization (In fact, the early Christians often worshipped with Jews in the temple and in synangogues.)   
numerous other actions not mentioned in scripture, but deemed by the congregation elders to be "worldly". "Worldly" conduct in this case covers a broad range of actions not clearly defined by the Bible, leaving discernment about what is not acceptable to the discretion of the oversight.. 
Not to eat?
Here it is important to learn the customs of association for worship practiced by first-century Jews and Christians, bearing in mind that Jesus and the apostles were Jews. They lived according to the Jewish lifestyle and customs of their day. Jesus taught in the synogogues; hence, he was called "Rabbi." Matt.26:25; 26:49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:25; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8 
There were two kinds of association for religious worship:
1)     public meetings, such as at the temple and in synogogues, which anyone was allowed to attend; and
2)     private gatherings of the different sects.

Christians and Jews participated in both. Christians met in private homes, usually over a special meal with prayer. A presiding minister hosted the meal using either fellowship funds or personal funds. (Acts 20:20)
Christians were instructed to "greet" one another with a kiss. (Rom.16:16; 1.Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; Ti.3:15; 1Pet.5:14) When Paul sent his "greetings" in a letter to the Christians in Thessalonica, he requested that the "brothers" be greeted by a "holy kiss" on his behalf. (1Thess.5:26).
Clearly, Paul did instruct Christians to expel from the congregation's fellowship any person who was purposely practicing willful sin. The disassociation would quite naturally exclude them from being greeted by the identifying "holy kiss," as well as not being allowed to share in meetings and the meals for Christian worship and prayer. 
However, Paul's instruction did not prohibit normal conversation or discussing the Bible with former members. Nor were they barred from attending worship in the temple or the synagogues. Jesus, the apostles and Paul, along with the rest of the Jews, worshipped God both publicly in the temple and synagogues, and privately with small groups in various homes (Acts 5:42). It was only from the private Christian fellowship for worship that sinners were excluded. 
What of 2 John 10,11? 
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 Jonh 10,11 KJV)
The above scripture is not about people who have been expelled from the Christian congregation. When read in context, it is about anyone who "does not bring this teaching" [of the Christ]. Because they held congregation meetings in their homes (which might be little more than a dug-out or tent outside the city walls of Jerusalem), in their culture their neighbors might view inviting a non-Christian into the home as the Christian sharing worship with non-Christians. 
If 2 John 10, 11 was observed literally by Revivalists, they would be obliged to never invite anyone other than Revivalists in good standing into their home, or ever speak a greeting to anyone other than a Revivalist. 
How did Jesus say one expelled from congregation should be treated? 
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matt 18:15-17 KJV)
The instruction was to bring up the matter of sin first between the two individuals alone. Then, if the sinner would repent, there was no need to carry the matter further. If the sinner was not repentant, then one or two others should be sought for witnesses. If the sinner remained unrepentant, only then, as a last resort, should it be brought before the entire congregation (not privately with the "oversight"). 
If, after all that, the person still would not listen, he should then be treated the same as Gentiles and tax collectors. In other words, Christians were to treat former members just like anyone else who was not a member of the congregation. To be treated like a "heathen" (which is to say, a Gentile or foreigner) was far from being shunned. Jewish people worked with, associated with, transacted business with, and preached to Gentiles. As for "publicans" (or "tax collectors" in the NIV Bible), Jesus ate and associated with them. Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were not popular, but they were not shunned. 
As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Matt 9:9-13 NIV) 
The Bible Teaches Us to Show Love
There is no scripture basis for mandating that Christians must totally shun former members (that is, have no communication or conversation with them). The instruction is to expel them from the congregation and treat them like anyone else who is not a member. Especially, there is no scripture to support shunning of one's own relatives--parents, children and siblings. 
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."--1 Tim.5:8 (NIV) 
Even for the rest, Paul counseled against abandoning those separated from the congregation: 
We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2Thes.3:13-15 NIV) 
If the law of Christianity can be summed up in one word, it is LOVE. No, we are not saying to be wishy-washy and allow people to do whatever they want to one another and themselves in the name of Christ.  We are not saying we should allow false doctrines to go unchallenged.  But we should approach all erring brothers and sisters, not shun them!  
Does not love rescue and recover the sinner? Would Jesus shun the sheep that strayed from the flock? 
Now the tax collectors and "sinners" were all gathering around to hear him. 2But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." Then Jesus told them this parable: "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (Luke 15:1-7 NIV)

Note that the sheep did not have to come back and find the shepherd, the shepherd went after the lost sheep. Is it this way in the Revival Centres?
The Bible simply does not teach the practice of shunning as demonstrated by the Revival Centres.  It teaches us to strive for forgiveness and restoration. 
"So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, `I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:3, 4) 
"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:1,2) 
James 5:19,20 - "My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins." 
Let us pray that the Revival Centres will soon be blessed with Scriptural insight on their policy of extremist shunning of former members, thereby liberating thousands--both within and out of the organisations--from the heart-sickening anguish imposed by this cruel, unjust, and unscriptural practice. 

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re：Shunning and ex-communication

Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:35 PMCopy HTML

$%*'`[I am Evil Homer]%*'`@Reply to : MrJonah 

Reply to : I am Evil Homer [Anonymous]They have absolutely NO justification for shunning people who leave the GRC. In fact, the Bible teaches the oppositeisfellowshipping versus ShunningThe point of this article will be to show that the Revival Centres' shunning doctrine does not adhere to the Bible. Further, an understanding of congregational practices of first-century Christians in the Jewish culture is necessary for a proper understanding of the scriptures on this matter.The primary scripture for consideration is: 

wow,thanks MrJonah..that was QUICK!

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re：Shunning and ex-communication

Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:43 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : I am Evil Homer [Anonymous] 


wow,thanks MrJonah..that was QUICK! 

You're welcome.  Of course it was a cut and paste.  
To discuss the matter of shunning from a psychologcal perspective, I add this article...
=================
Shunning: 
"A Part of the Faith of Jehovah's Witnesses" 
(Watchtower 4/15/88, p. 29) 
by Gary Busselman 
shun - to keep away from; avoid scrupulously or consistently. 
(Webster's New World Dictionary) 
- to keep clear of; avoid. (Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary) 
Why It Works 
Why would I be afraid of someone who threatened not to talk to me unless I behaved a certain way? Why would I punish someone by not talking to them? Why would people try and try to gain the acceptance of a group who would look right through them without speaking or even acknowledge them when they chance met? What are the rewards for the shunners? What are the rewards for the shunned? 
As a former Jehovah's Witness, I have shunned and been shunned. I believe many, maybe most, people when exposed to shunning are not attracted to or by it. When I explain the disfellowshipping doctrine to people who are not familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses practice of shunning they stare at me in disbelief. 
When I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness I remember once a disfellowshipped woman with small children had attended a Thursday night JW group meeting that ended about 9:45 PM. She was required to sit in the back and she could not speak to or be spoken to by anyone there. When we left the meeting this disfellowshipped woman was still there after 10:00 PM deep in a residential neighborhood with small children and a broken down car. We all did our duty to the Watchtower and shunned her. We did not offer to help her. I never saw her again. 
Why the threat of shunning helped to keep me "in line" is clearer to me today. I believe that very night we "freed" the woman with the broken car, but we further enslaved ourselves to the Watchtower. For two reasons: 
(1) We reinforced each other by participating in a crime. In order for me to accept my own (truly un-Christian) behavior I had to approve, reinforce, accept, and condone the behavior of all the other members of the group. Shunning gave me the illusion of power. The illusion of power to a powerless person is a drug. 
(2) The group members modeled for me what they were willing to do in keeping the commands of the WT. For a moment I put myself in that woman's place, and I knew I didn't want to be there. Raised by Witness parents and indoctrinated by the WT since age seven, all my real security was tied up with a Watchtower ribbon. The thought of leaving the group was unthinkable. Regularly scheduled portions of JW group meetings were discussions on disfellowshipping, shunning, and the consequences of leaving "Jehovah's Organization." 
Shunning means those whom we used to call brothers and sisters we would now pass in the market or street without acknowledging. When I practiced shunning while in the company of another Witness the act of shunning would, in my own eyes, be a witnessed proof of my loyalty to Jehovah. I was on spiritual high ground (a sort of religious "high"). While alone I was less bold when a shunning opportunity would arise, but if I thought that there may be even a chance that another JW might be watching I would "play the part" all the way. If it was a private situation, however, I might feel somewhat uncomfortable and maybe even make eye contact and nod. 
Shunning as Spiritual Abuse 
Recently, during a conversation with another former JW, the subject of abuse came up. The question was asked, "Is there any context of involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses that is not direct abuse, indirect abuse, or a set up for abuse?" We batted this around for a couple of hours and concluded that in every situation we could come up with involving JWs there is a real or potential victim. Conclusion: Any contact with a JW or the "mother" organization (the Watchtower) is abuse in the name of God, i.e. spiritual abuse. 
Real or threatened, physical, mental, emotional, and verbal abuse is their power over members and often former members. Fear, guilt, shame, hatred, and later resentment and anger kept me with them selling Watchtowers on dirty street corners next to the bums, and from house to house. 
Shunning is probably the ultimate rejection of me as a person and maybe the cruelest mental, emotional, and psychological form of abuse. The results of the shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses done to me was substantial pain and suffering ... but only as long as lowed it to continue. 
Shunning is a Drug... 
...and drug users need enablers. I've noticed a few things about abusers of people and things. A person who abuses other humans does it for a reason. It is the same as any addiction to a substance or behavior. The addict gets something out of it, a "reward." I have done research on the subject of addiction and have reached some interesting conclusions. 
Addicts need a drug , abusers need a victim. Shunners are playing a mind game and they need a playmate who will follow the rules. Shunning is their drug. Abusers need help to carry out their abuse. They need enablers (victims). Without their victims they can not continue to abuse. Watchtower rules for shunning must be followed by both shunner and VICTIM or shunning doesn't work! Shunning is a show. To best work it needs an arena to be played in, and an audience. 
Recognizing My Responsibility 
I have a duty to myself, who I love, and to my many loved ones and real friends to protect myself and them from abuse and abusers. 
We are obligated to protect ourselves, even from parents. There is a limit on the extent to which we honor or obey them. To honor means to provide food, clothing, and shelter to them if asked, to avoid reprimands, be civil in conversation, and accommodate parents in requests made. To honor parents does not mean to make myself a target for their abuse of any kind. Emotional abuse hurts just as bad as physical abuse even though the scars are not on the outside. 
Shunning is one of the WT's main reinforcers. When JWs shun me, and I allow it, thereby showing respect for their rules, I only reinforce their bad behavior and give them permission to do it again next time. In effect, I am telling him (and myself) that I am deserving of that kind of treatment. 
Partial shunning is also practiced by JWs. Married couples (one practicing Witness, one disfellowshipped /disassociated) are taught to practice shunning in the home. This practice is unacceptable by me and is clearly intended to split up families. How can JWs believe they are keeping all of the marriage vows while requiring one spouse to spiritually shun the other? How can one reduce a marriage to sex and business? How can a couple be happy just talking about the garden, weather and sports at ten? 
Here is a thought I had one day. I need to look at the beliefs taught me (past and current, especially the ones used to indoctrinate me, since these probably make up my core beliefs) and view them as principles that I will either keep to run my life by, or as garbage, to be thrown out with the rest of the trash. I find the principles in the teachings. I write them on paper, one by one, then I test them, first by themselves, then by each other. In my case I tested them by the Watchtower's own standards, then to my personal standards, being careful to keep the two separate. I needed to do this until all, I mean ALL, of my beliefs are mine and I can clearly give my own reasons for accepting the theory. If I reject a concept, I also need to be able to intelligently explain why. On most issues I have had to read two books, one pro, the other con. If I can't debate both sides of an issue then I know I don't understand the issue. Dogmatism and forced uniformity only have one side. 
I have a duty to myself to test and establish my own principles, that I can live with, then be true and loyal to those principles or change them. The only things in my life that are black and white are newspapers and old movies. As a Watchtower-liberated free-thinker, I am continually learning and forming new opinions on my own, and it feels good. On many subjects my opinion is "I don't know." On a few others it's "I don't care." 
To let an abuser suffer the consequences for his behavior does not mean that we need to be abusive to them. I do think it means that I take a firm stand and let them know what my stand is. Watchtower doctrinal flip-flops bother me and my former JW friends who find me acceptable to them only when the issue is money tend to bore me. I do not think a puppet following the latest Watchtower policy is acceptable to me, even if I happen to like the new policy. 
Loyalty and Love Confused 
When getting someone out of the Watchtower organization becomes my life focus and an obsession I have found I can't be useful to myself or anyone else. When I rebuke the abusers and put them out of the picture I find I can now be free to help others who have been victimized by these people. The JWs who practice shunning me kept inserting themselves in my life then taking shots at me as long as I let them. I have never been directly hurt by the group leaders, but always by my own acquaintances and relatives, and always because I made myself available to them. Allowing myself to be victimized was a powerless situation and I needed some power. Defining my boundaries to Jehovah's Witnesses and rebuking them has been incredibly empowering. 
If my happiness is contingent on a special person leaving the Watchtower organization then I have put a pretty cheap price on my happiness. If I have to wait to have a good life until other people, places, or things change then I'm no better off than the members of the Watchtower and I could just as well be back under the "official" control and influence of the group. 
 For a period of time after leaving the Watchtower I was still loyal to the leaders and the local members. However, once I tested their doctrines with reliable sources and really looked at their older publications, I was freed both mentally and spiritually. 
Remember too, I, as a former member, can talk to anybody. I can certainly talk to them. The current members are the ones being punished. THEY are the ones who can't talk to me, or read anything critical of the WT, or even read a book written by a former member, by order of their leaders. 
One Jehovah's Witness I know has a daughter and a son. Both were raised as Witnesses. The daughter was baptized by the Witnesses. The son was not. As adolescents both the daughter and the son started to use tobacco. The daughter, because she was baptized, was disfellowshipped for using tobacco. She moved away, married, had a child, quit going to meetings, and continued to use tobacco. The father has not spoken to her or seen her for  years. The father has not spoken to or seen his granddaughter, ever. 
The son also quit attending JW group meetings, moved away, got married, had two children, and also continued to use tobacco. But the son, because he was not baptized, was not disfellowshipped. The father has an ongoing relationship with his son and these two grandchildren even though the son continues to use tobacco. 
If the father is shunning the behavior (tobacco use), then he would have to shun them both. Since he continues a relationship with the son I'm inclined to think that the unforgivable sin is baptism by Jehovah's Witnesses! 

Anonymous
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Unknown Register：06/04/2001 10:54 PM	Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:25 PMCopy HTML $%'`[I am Evil Homer]%'`@Can someone please tell me what scripture it is that Noel Hollins uses to justify people being treated like scum so that they will supposedly 'turn back to the church',I am still trying to fathom how by the disgusting action of family and friends turning their backs on former members they think this will work..in my own experience it only made me realise how pathetic and cruel it really is,I think they have it ALL wrong,if anything I think it turns people away from EVER wanting to go back..I mean who would want to be 'accepted' back by those that treated us so badly.
Ex_Member	Share to: #1
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Unknown Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM	Re：Shunning and ex-communication Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:33 PMCopy HTML Reply to : I am Evil Homer [Anonymous] They have absolutely NO justification for shunning people who leave the GRC. In fact, there is a strong case from the Bible to do the exact opposite of what the GRC does. Disfellowshipping versus Shunning The point of this article will be to show that the Revival Centres' shunning doctrine does not adhere to the Bible. Further, an understanding of congregational practices of first-century Christians in the Jewish culture is necessary for a proper understanding of the scriptures on this matter. The primary scripture for consideration is: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. -1.Cor. 5:11 (KJV) The text is clear that a person with whom the congregation should not mix company is one who is: "called a brother" (that is, one who professes to be a member of the congregation); and practicing (unrepentant) fornication (see here for more information on this), greed, idolotry, reviling (insulting), habitual drunkeness, and/or extortion (theft). The Revival Centres do not disfellowship greedy persons. They do not disfellowship people for many of the things which they themselves class as "idolatry" (for example: materialism, worshipping an organization, etc.). On the other hand, The Revival Centres do disfellowship and shun people for: no longer claiming to be called a brother/sister. discussion of the Bible that brings Revival Centre doctrine into question. distribution (and in some cases even possession) of literature written by other Christian and former Revivalists. having lunch with a former member, even if the former member professes to be a Christian and was not disfellowshipped for fornication, greed, idolotry, reviling, drunkeness, or extortion. (in some cases) attending a service of any other church or religious organization (In fact, the early Christians often worshipped with Jews in the temple and in synangogues.) numerous other actions not mentioned in scripture, but deemed by the congregation elders to be "worldly". "Worldly" conduct in this case covers a broad range of actions not clearly defined by the Bible, leaving discernment about what is not acceptable to the discretion of the oversight.. Not to eat? Here it is important to learn the customs of association for worship practiced by first-century Jews and Christians, bearing in mind that Jesus and the apostles were Jews. They lived according to the Jewish lifestyle and customs of their day. Jesus taught in the synogogues; hence, he was called "Rabbi." Matt.26:25; 26:49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:25; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8 There were two kinds of association for religious worship: 1) public meetings, such as at the temple and in synogogues, which anyone was allowed to attend; and 2) private gatherings of the different sects. Christians and Jews participated in both. Christians met in private homes, usually over a special meal with prayer. A presiding minister hosted the meal using either fellowship funds or personal funds. (Acts 20:20) Christians were instructed to "greet" one another with a kiss. (Rom.16:16; 1.Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; Ti.3:15; 1Pet.5:14) When Paul sent his "greetings" in a letter to the Christians in Thessalonica, he requested that the "brothers" be greeted by a "holy kiss" on his behalf. (1Thess.5:26). Clearly, Paul did instruct Christians to expel from the congregation's fellowship any person who was purposely practicing willful sin. The disassociation would quite naturally exclude them from being greeted by the identifying "holy kiss," as well as not being allowed to share in meetings and the meals for Christian worship and prayer. However, Paul's instruction did not prohibit normal conversation or discussing the Bible with former members. Nor were they barred from attending worship in the temple or the synagogues. Jesus, the apostles and Paul, along with the rest of the Jews, worshipped God both publicly in the temple and synagogues, and privately with small groups in various homes (Acts 5:42). It was only from the private Christian fellowship for worship that sinners were excluded. What of 2 John 10,11? If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 Jonh 10,11 KJV) The above scripture is not about people who have been expelled from the Christian congregation. When read in context, it is about *anyone* who "does not bring this teaching" [of the Christ]. Because they held congregation meetings in their homes (which might be little more than a dug-out or tent outside the city walls of Jerusalem), in their culture their neighbors might view inviting a non-Christian into the home as the Christian sharing worship with non-Christians. If 2 John 10, 11 was observed literally by Revivalists, they would be obliged to never invite anyone other than Revivalists in good standing into their home, or ever speak a greeting to anyone other than a Revivalist. How did Jesus say one expelled from congregation should be treated? Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matt 18:15-17 KJV) The instruction was to bring up the matter of sin first between the two individuals alone. Then, if the sinner would repent, there was no need to carry the matter further. If the sinner was not repentant, then one or two others should be sought for witnesses. If the sinner remained unrepentant, only then, as a last resort, should it be brought before the entire congregation (not privately with the "oversight"). If, after all that, the person still would not listen, he should then be treated the same as Gentiles and tax collectors. In other words, Christians were to treat former members just like anyone else who was not a member of the congregation. To be treated like a "heathen" (which is to say, a Gentile or foreigner) was far from being shunned. Jewish people worked with, associated with, transacted business with, and preached to Gentiles. As for "publicans" (or "tax collectors" in the NIV Bible), Jesus ate and associated with them. Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were not popular, but they were not shunned. As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Matt 9:9-13 NIV) The Bible Teaches Us to Show Love There is no scripture basis for mandating that Christians must totally shun former members (that is, have no communication or conversation with them). The instruction is to expel them from the congregation and treat them like anyone else who is not a member. Especially, there is no scripture to support shunning of one's own relatives--parents, children and siblings. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."--1 Tim.5:8 (NIV) Even for the rest, Paul counseled against abandoning those separated from the congregation: We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2Thes.3:13-15 NIV) If the law of Christianity can be summed up in one word, it is LOVE. No, we are not saying to be wishy-washy and allow people to do whatever they want to one another and themselves in the name of Christ. We are not saying we should allow false doctrines to go unchallenged. But we should approach all erring brothers and sisters, not shun them! Does not love rescue and recover the sinner? Would Jesus shun the sheep that strayed from the flock? Now the tax collectors and "sinners" were all gathering around to hear him. 2But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." Then Jesus told them this parable: "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (Luke 15:1-7 NIV) Note that the sheep did not have to come back and find the shepherd, the shepherd went after the lost sheep. Is it this way in the Revival Centres? The Bible simply does not teach the practice of shunning as demonstrated by the Revival Centres. It teaches us to strive for forgiveness and restoration. "So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, `I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:3, 4) "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:1,2) James 5:19,20 - "My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins." Let us pray that the Revival Centres will soon be blessed with Scriptural insight on their policy of extremist shunning of former members, thereby liberating thousands--both within and out of the organisations--from the heart-sickening anguish imposed by this cruel, unjust, and unscriptural practice.
Anonymous	Share to: #2
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Unknown Register：06/04/2001 10:54 PM	Re：Shunning and ex-communication Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:35 PMCopy HTML $%'`[I am Evil Homer]%'`@Reply to : MrJonah Reply to : I am Evil Homer [Anonymous]They have absolutely NO justification for shunning people who leave the GRC. In fact, the Bible teaches the oppositeisfellowshipping versus ShunningThe point of this article will be to show that the Revival Centres' shunning doctrine does not adhere to the Bible. Further, an understanding of congregational practices of first-century Christians in the Jewish culture is necessary for a proper understanding of the scriptures on this matter.The primary scripture for consideration is: wow,thanks MrJonah..that was QUICK!
Ex_Member	Share to: #3
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Unknown Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM	Re：Shunning and ex-communication Date Posted：21/10/2005 5:43 PMCopy HTML Reply to : I am Evil Homer [Anonymous] wow,thanks MrJonah..that was QUICK! You're welcome. Of course it was a cut and paste. To discuss the matter of shunning from a psychologcal perspective, I add this article... ================= Shunning: "A Part of the Faith of Jehovah's Witnesses" (Watchtower 4/15/88, p. 29) by Gary Busselman shun - to keep away from; avoid scrupulously or consistently. (Webster's New World Dictionary) - to keep clear of; avoid. (Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary) Why It Works Why would I be afraid of someone who threatened not to talk to me unless I behaved a certain way? Why would I punish someone by not talking to them? Why would people try and try to gain the acceptance of a group who would look right through them without speaking or even acknowledge them when they chance met? What are the rewards for the shunners? What are the rewards for the shunned? As a former Jehovah's Witness, I have shunned and been shunned. I believe many, maybe most, people when exposed to shunning are not attracted to or by it. When I explain the disfellowshipping doctrine to people who are not familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses practice of shunning they stare at me in disbelief. When I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness I remember once a disfellowshipped woman with small children had attended a Thursday night JW group meeting that ended about 9:45 PM. She was required to sit in the back and she could not speak to or be spoken to by anyone there. When we left the meeting this disfellowshipped woman was still there after 10:00 PM deep in a residential neighborhood with small children and a broken down car. We all did our duty to the Watchtower and shunned her. We did not offer to help her. I never saw her again. Why the threat of shunning helped to keep me "in line" is clearer to me today. I believe that very night we "freed" the woman with the broken car, but we further enslaved ourselves to the Watchtower. For two reasons: (1) We reinforced each other by participating in a crime. In order for me to accept my own (truly un-Christian) behavior I had to approve, reinforce, accept, and condone the behavior of all the other members of the group. Shunning gave me the illusion of power. The illusion of power to a powerless person is a drug. (2) The group members modeled for me what they were willing to do in keeping the commands of the WT. For a moment I put myself in that woman's place, and I knew I didn't want to be there. Raised by Witness parents and indoctrinated by the WT since age seven, all my real security was tied up with a Watchtower ribbon. The thought of leaving the group was unthinkable. Regularly scheduled portions of JW group meetings were discussions on disfellowshipping, shunning, and the consequences of leaving "Jehovah's Organization." Shunning means those whom we used to call brothers and sisters we would now pass in the market or street without acknowledging. When I practiced shunning while in the company of another Witness the act of shunning would, in my own eyes, be a witnessed proof of my loyalty to Jehovah. I was on spiritual high ground (a sort of religious "high"). While alone I was less bold when a shunning opportunity would arise, but if I thought that there may be even a chance that another JW might be watching I would "play the part" all the way. If it was a private situation, however, I might feel somewhat uncomfortable and maybe even make eye contact and nod. Shunning as Spiritual Abuse Recently, during a conversation with another former JW, the subject of abuse came up. The question was asked, "Is there any context of involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses that is not direct abuse, indirect abuse, or a set up for abuse?" We batted this around for a couple of hours and concluded that in every situation we could come up with involving JWs there is a real or potential victim. Conclusion: Any contact with a JW or the "mother" organization (the Watchtower) is abuse in the name of God, i.e. spiritual abuse. Real or threatened, physical, mental, emotional, and verbal abuse is their power over members and often former members. Fear, guilt, shame, hatred, and later resentment and anger kept me with them selling Watchtowers on dirty street corners next to the bums, and from house to house. Shunning is probably the ultimate rejection of me as a person and maybe the cruelest mental, emotional, and psychological form of abuse. The results of the shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses done to me was substantial pain and suffering ... but only as long as lowed it to continue. Shunning is a Drug... ...and drug users need enablers. I've noticed a few things about abusers of people and things. A person who abuses other humans does it for a reason. It is the same as any addiction to a substance or behavior. The addict gets something out of it, a "reward." I have done research on the subject of addiction and have reached some interesting conclusions. Addicts need a drug , abusers need a victim. Shunners are playing a mind game and they need a playmate who will follow the rules. Shunning is their drug. Abusers need help to carry out their abuse. They need enablers (victims). Without their victims they can not continue to abuse. Watchtower rules for shunning must be followed by both shunner and VICTIM or shunning doesn't work! Shunning is a show. To best work it needs an arena to be played in, and an audience. Recognizing My Responsibility I have a duty to myself, who I love, and to my many loved ones and real friends to protect myself and them from abuse and abusers. We are obligated to protect ourselves, even from parents. There is a limit on the extent to which we honor or obey them. To honor means to provide food, clothing, and shelter to them if asked, to avoid reprimands, be civil in conversation, and accommodate parents in requests made. To honor parents does not mean to make myself a target for their abuse of any kind. Emotional abuse hurts just as bad as physical abuse even though the scars are not on the outside. Shunning is one of the WT's main reinforcers. When JWs shun me, and I allow it, thereby showing respect for their rules, I only reinforce their bad behavior and give them permission to do it again next time. In effect, I am telling him (and myself) that I am deserving of that kind of treatment. Partial shunning is also practiced by JWs. Married couples (one practicing Witness, one disfellowshipped /disassociated) are taught to practice shunning in the home. This practice is unacceptable by me and is clearly intended to split up families. How can JWs believe they are keeping all of the marriage vows while requiring one spouse to spiritually shun the other? How can one reduce a marriage to sex and business? How can a couple be happy just talking about the garden, weather and sports at ten? Here is a thought I had one day. I need to look at the beliefs taught me (past and current, especially the ones used to indoctrinate me, since these probably make up my core beliefs) and view them as principles that I will either keep to run my life by, or as garbage, to be thrown out with the rest of the trash. I find the principles in the teachings. I write them on paper, one by one, then I test them, first by themselves, then by each other. In my case I tested them by the Watchtower's own standards, then to my personal standards, being careful to keep the two separate. I needed to do this until all, I mean ALL, of my beliefs are mine and I can clearly give my own reasons for accepting the theory. If I reject a concept, I also need to be able to intelligently explain why. On most issues I have had to read two books, one pro, the other con. If I can't debate both sides of an issue then I know I don't understand the issue. Dogmatism and forced uniformity only have one side. I have a duty to myself to test and establish my own principles, that I can live with, then be true and loyal to those principles or change them. The only things in my life that are black and white are newspapers and old movies. As a Watchtower-liberated free-thinker, I am continually learning and forming new opinions on my own, and it feels good. On many subjects my opinion is "I don't know." On a few others it's "I don't care." To let an abuser suffer the consequences for his behavior does not mean that we need to be abusive to them. I do think it means that I take a firm stand and let them know what my stand is. Watchtower doctrinal flip-flops bother me and my former JW friends who find me acceptable to them only when the issue is money tend to bore me. I do not think a puppet following the latest Watchtower policy is acceptable to me, even if I happen to like the new policy. Loyalty and Love Confused When getting someone out of the Watchtower organization becomes my life focus and an obsession I have found I can't be useful to myself or anyone else. When I rebuke the abusers and put them out of the picture I find I can now be free to help others who have been victimized by these people. The JWs who practice shunning me kept inserting themselves in my life then taking shots at me as long as I let them. I have never been directly hurt by the group leaders, but always by my own acquaintances and relatives, and always because I made myself available to them. Allowing myself to be victimized was a powerless situation and I needed some power. Defining my boundaries to Jehovah's Witnesses and rebuking them has been incredibly empowering. If my happiness is contingent on a special person leaving the Watchtower organization then I have put a pretty cheap price on my happiness. If I have to wait to have a good life until other people, places, or things change then I'm no better off than the members of the Watchtower and I could just as well be back under the "official" control and influence of the group. For a period of time after leaving the Watchtower I was still loyal to the leaders and the local members. However, once I tested their doctrines with reliable sources and really looked at their older publications, I was freed both mentally and spiritually. Remember too, I, as a former member, can talk to anybody. I can certainly talk to them. The current members are the ones being punished. THEY are the ones who can't talk to me, or read anything critical of the WT, or even read a book written by a former member, by order of their leaders. One Jehovah's Witness I know has a daughter and a son. Both were raised as Witnesses. The daughter was baptized by the Witnesses. The son was not. As adolescents both the daughter and the son started to use tobacco. The daughter, because she was baptized, was disfellowshipped for using tobacco. She moved away, married, had a child, quit going to meetings, and continued to use tobacco. The father has not spoken to her or seen her for years. The father has not spoken to or seen his granddaughter, ever. The son also quit attending JW group meetings, moved away, got married, had two children, and also continued to use tobacco. But the son, because he was not baptized, was not disfellowshipped. The father has an ongoing relationship with his son and these two grandchildren even though the son continues to use tobacco. If the father is shunning the behavior (tobacco use), then he would have to shun them both. Since he continues a relationship with the son I'm inclined to think that the unforgivable sin is baptism by Jehovah's Witnesses!