Shunning

[Elijah John]

Which groups and/or denominations practice "shunning"?

What other names mean the same thing? (disfellowship-ing etc.)

When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

[marco]

Which groups and/or denominations practice "shunning"?

What other names mean the same thing? (disfellowship-ing etc.)

When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

Jehovah's Witnesses have disfellowshipping, which I suppose is a euphemism for discarding people as though they no longer existed. It may be they are copying the RC practice of excommunication which seems similar but there's no requirement to break the excommunicates off from families, since it is a technical, religious matter.
In Muslim countries those who are cut off might be cut off more dramatically, their heads being separated from their bodies or they might be stoned for being apostates. I was informed by someone from a staunch Muslim country that he would throw the first stone if he thought his brother guilty of adultery. Nearer home here we have Protestant sects that would certainly cut members off if they entered a Catholic Church to attend a funeral, for example.

One can understand the practice of shunning, atrocious though it is, when one considers that religious cohesion is of paramount importance.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

We JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES practice shunning (disfellowshipping). We use both terms.

Here are my earier post on this subject:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 113#877113


When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

Biblical shunning as perscribed by Jesus and the inspired Christian bible writers can be justified by those that want to obey God in our current era. Why? Because obedience to God's law is part of our expression of love for Him, His standards and for others. Doing good is always justified; shunning or disfellowshipping is no exception.



JW




[youtube][/youtube]



Why do Jehovahs Witnesses practice SHUNNING?
viewtopic.php?p=877113#p877113

Further Reading: Do Jehovah's Witnesses Shun Former Members of Their Religion?
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Break Up Families or Build Them Up?

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , SHUNNING and ... ORGANISATIONAL INFALLIBILITY

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

We JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES practice shunning (disfellowshipping). We use both terms.

Here are my earier post on this subject:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 113#877113


When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

Biblical shunning as perscribed by Jesus and the inspired Christian bible writers can be justified by those that want to obey God in our current era. Why? Because obedience to God's law is part of our expression of love for Him, His standards and for others. Doing good is always justified; shunning or disfellowshipping is no exception.

I apologize that I don't have time to go over you links, but perhaps you will tell us if shunning is employed against those who actually habitually "live in sin" or merely when one questions of challenges any point of JW doctrine.

And in either case, how far does that go? Do JW's advocate distancing themselves from family members when they challenge the WTS or adopt an immoral lifestyle?

[Elijah John]

Which groups and/or denominations practice "shunning"?

What other names mean the same thing? (disfellowship-ing etc.)

When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

Jehovah's Witnesses have disfellowshipping, which I suppose is a euphemism for discarding people as though they no longer existed. It may be they are copying the RC practice of excommunication which seems similar but there's no requirement to break the excommunicates off from families, since it is a technical, religious matter.
In Muslim countries those who are cut off might be cut off more dramatically, their heads being separated from their bodies or they might be stoned for being apostates. I was informed by someone from a staunch Muslim country that he would throw the first stone if he thought his brother guilty of adultery. Nearer home here we have Protestant sects that would certainly cut members off if they entered a Catholic Church to attend a funeral, for example.

One can understand the practice of shunning, atrocious though it is, when one considers that religious cohesion is of paramount importance.

Good observations, but it is hard to see how the extreme cases of shunning can ever be justified, even in the name of "religious cohesion".

[marco]

#877113


When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

It cannot - without going against Christ's injunction to love thy enemy. Casting out a family member and causing them pain is not following Christ. It may pretend to be following advice Paul gave which effectively was: "Keep away from bad company." This is sensible advice. Throw your sister onto the street; don't talk to your own family - this is certainly not the advice of Christ or Paul. Shunning opposes Christ's message, quite simply. Those who shun are those who passed by the injured man, whom the Samaritan helped.

Of course people can find excuses for their wrong actions by quoting Scripture. Shakespeare, in the Merchant of Venice, wrote:
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Phaedrus, in his fable about the wolf and the lamb points out that when someone wants to do something bad, they will find an excuse for it.

Obviously people who dissent are an inconvenience. It shows how strong is the hold on people if they are willing to go against their own family. But at least the dissenters aren't stoned, so we should be thankful for small mercies. Sad really.

[JehovahsWitness]

#877113


When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

It* cannot - without going against Christ's injunction to love thy enemy.

Line ONE: It most certainly can and that without going against Christ injunction to love they enemy.

Line TWO: Here is the link where I explain how Jehovah's Witness practice shunning.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 672#895672


* biblical shunning



JW

[marco]

#877113


When can shunning be justified, if ever? Why?

It* cannot - without going against Christ's injunction to love thy enemy.

Line ONE: It most certainly can and that without going against Christ injunction to love they enemy.

You misunderstand the difference between trying to justify and succeeding. Avoiding bad company is fine. Paul says we should shun the drunkard when common sense tells us he might need sympathy and help. Sticking uncharitably to the letter of the law was exactly the behaviour Christ condemned and Christ today would be horrified at a group, acting in his name, throwing out family members and causing them pain.

It is obviously in the interest of a group to throw out those who dissent; that is a political move and nothing whatsoever to do with Christ's teaching. Those who dictate in the group have their own interests at heart, not those of Christ. That at least seems obvious. The model of course is the Catholic Church which got round the problem of dissent by excommunication.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION #1: How can biblical shunning be considered a loving neighbourly act?

The indescriminate condoning of all acts is not only unloving and unchristian but dangerous. For example, would it be kind and loving to allow a child abuser unsupervised time with a minor because that was in line with his wishes? Is is "neighbourly" to leave someone that habitually and in full knowledge of the consequences drove his vehicle while under the effects of alchohol? Would a murder be left ouside of prison because incarcerating him would cut him off from society and possibly his own children? All the above questions highlight a basic principle, the existence and exercise of just laws protect the individual members of a society and is fully justified even though they also encroach on the individual freedoms of those that break them "causing [the law breaker] a measure of pain".

QUESTION #2: Did Jesus condone all sins and advocate the removal of all religious law?

No he did not! It was not rare for Jesus to tell individuals to "God and sin no more" and pronounced entire sermons on right behaviour. As a Jew Jesus at no time implied that the Mosaic law which governed Jewish religious life was in error. He often referred people back to the written laws of his day and when he found himself on trial for his own life, did the same. Although Jesus constantly highlighted the value of mercy, balance and forgiveness, he indicated that there would nonetheless be individuals with authority to judge and sanction on certain "church" matters (ie matters that would effect the larger Christian community) - see Mat 16:18; Mat 18:17. Such individual would not have the right to impose the death penalty for serious sins as the Jewish Hight court could under the mosaic law.


QUESTION #3: Does the existence of church authoritized sanctions, even "expulsions" contradict the sentiments of the "Sermon on the mount" or the "Good Samaritan"?

No. Jesus was teaching the value of basic human kindness no matter who that person would be. So even someone that would be sanctioned by Peter or other leading men in the community would still have the right to be treated in a humaine fashion*. If their life for example were in danger or they were suffering in some other way, their position as someone expulsed for serious sin from the Christian community would in no way serve as excuse not to help them (contrary to what was promoted by the religious leaders in Jesus' day). Furthermore, the implementation of sanctions, as explained at the outset is for the loving protection of the other members of the congregation and exercised in the hope that the discipline will result in a change of heart on the part of the sinner (compare Mk 2:17). Loving ones "enemy" does does not mean loving child abuse, drunkeness, adultery, lying theft, slander etc, neither does it mean tolerating or seeking close regular commuinity those that unrepentantly practise or promote such behaviours within the Christian community. Indeed tolerating unrepentant wrongdoing is unloving to the individual as this would encourage him to continue in a course that co

QUESTION #4: Are sanctions imposed instead of needed sympathy and help?

Absolutely not; Church authorities are encouraged not to "stick uncharitably to the letter of the law" but to take into account circumstances and attitude when judging. There is no offense that automatically results in being expulsed and certainly not if what that person really needs is sympathy and help. Someone that slips into wrongdoing but is regretful and open to be helped will be extended all the love and support they need to correct their behavior. Disfellowshipping is a measure reserved ONLY for those that do not want to change, are quite happy with their chosen mode of life and/or promote such behaviors within the community.

QUESTION #5: Does bibilcal shunning impose the "casting out a family member"?

Yes, it may do. The bible exorts Christians to "avoid bad company" and the bad company may well be a member of ones own family. The biblcal law is to quit association with those that have been disfellowshipped (shunned) so a Christian will cease all non-essential contact with a blood relative. It would not mean that one refrained from treating them in a humaine manner or that a Christian would refrain from extending help in extreme cases of need (see above).

NOTE: A Christian's responsibility to support aged parent and to love and train minor children is not overrideen if one of them has been "shunned" or disfellowshipped. For Christian the marriage bond is a permanent arrangement remains in tact until death* thus a Christian husband or wife must continue to show love and respect for their partner even if that one has been disfellowshipped. [/i]

* Jesus indicated that adultery is the only grounds for a biblical divorce although legal separation may well be something that is advisable in certain situations.


QUESTION #6: If ONE member of a family is "shunned" are all the other members of the family cast out of the community?

Absolutely not! The other members of a family are in no way held responsible for what an individual does, each member is responsible for their own conduct and nobody is punished for the sins of another.



QUESTION #7: Could a Jehovah's Witness be "thrown out" (disfellowshipped) for causing dissent?

Yes, certainly that could happen. As mentioned before no offense is automatically sanctioned and all members are free to hold or voice any number of opinions on any number of issues but they are not free to disrupt the smooth running of affairs or usurp or undermine duly appointed "elders". So if, for example someone were to consistently and unrepentenly promoting within the congretation unbibilcal ideas and behaviour that was causing disunity within the community there may depending on the circumstances, be an issue. Even when there is disfellowshipping, such measure must conform with written biblical law to ensure that individuals don't use their authority to further their own interests at heart, but those of Christ and the congregation.

DISSENT
noun
1.
the holding or expression of opinions at variance with those commonly or officially held.

JW



RELATED POSTS

Do Jehovah's Witnesses practise "shunning"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 672#895672

Do Jehovah's Witnesses judge homosexual?
viewtopic.php?p=993341#p993341

What did Jesus mean when he said "No one is good except ...God"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 02#p942302




FURTHER READING How to treat a disfellowshipped person?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008083

[Tcg]

[Replying to Elijah John]

One of the most stringent forms of shunning I am aware of is that practiced by the Amish. Their shunning is against not only the person who choses not to follow their religious views, but also against that person's offspring. I have a friend whose father rejected the Amish view of reality and as a result my friend has aunts, uncles, and cousins he is not allowed to meet or contact in any way.

Shunning over religious views is never justified. It is simply an example of the fear driven actions religious groups take when one of their members points out the irrationality of that beliefs that religious group holds.