ResignationStation: Could Disfellowshipping/Disassociation be Modified?

ResignationStation wrote [July 23, 2016 at 11:41 pm]:

Hey JW Advisors, hope you are doing well.

I just want to run something past you that a friend of mine sent me and see what you think. . . .

He wrote, [in effect]:

Couldn't we take just one term, "disassociation" or "disfellowshipping" and discard the other? Or maybe we could call it simply "resigning". It could provide more wiggle room, as neither term is found in the Bible. Then imagine that the things that a Witness needs to do are:

1) qualify as an unbaptized publisher.

2) dedicate your life to Jehovah in prayer.

3) tell the coordinator that you have dedicated your life to Jehovah and want to get baptized and answer the questions for baptism to be approved by all 3 elders.

4) get baptized at the next assembly or convention.

and, if you leave:

5) resign as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, either by words or by actions, resulting in being treated as a worldly person, and shunning would be left up to each member's conscience.

6) To become one of Jehovah's Witnesses again, you would have to go through steps 1-4, basically get baptised again.

What are your thoughts?

[Edit: Brackets mine. Friend's message rewritten for clarity]

JW Advisor: Disfellowshipping is a word that covers the scripture, "God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:9) It is a calling, not a social club. Therefore, to remove them from Christ's body is to "disfellowship" them.

Paul further wrote, "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: 'I will reside among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' '"Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves," says Jehovah, "and quit touching the unclean thing"'; '"and I will take you in."' '"And I will become a father to you, and you will become sons and daughters to me," says Jehovah, the Almighty.'" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

Paul's words were spoken to the entire congregation, and there was no room in his words for it being a conscience matter. If a brother does not stop speaking to them, they "become a sharer in his wicked works", and thus become worthy of being disfellowshipped their self. (2 John 10-11)

On the other hand, of apostates, we can derive the word "disassociate" from the scripture that says, "And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals, and to prayers." (Acts 2:42) Apostates have chosen not to associate with us in peace, choosing neither to believe as we believe nor to allow us to associate peacefully.

Thus, it is the place of the congregation to "disfellowship" an individual, forcing them out. While one who is "disassociated" has made a choice for themselves to leave the organization.

However, that is not to say that the distinction between the two words is not arbitrary as the word "associate" is actually used interchangeably with "fellowship" in the scriptures. The reason for the distinction we draw is because it communicates whether one left by choice or was forced out because they failed to live up to Bible standards. It may seem minor, but one has made a conscious decision to not be a part of the organization, while the other was unable to maintain Bible standards, which is why apostates are considered "disassociated" rather than "disfellowshipped", because they choose not to speak in agreement with the congregation.

It is also a matter of comfortable phonaesthetics. To say one has "disfellowshipped himself from the congregation" is awkward to the ear and gives the thought that he has punished himself. And to say that the congregation has "disassociated" a person suggests that they have caused him to remove his association from the congregation, as if the congregation is not worthy of him. However, as currently used, they are both comfortable. (At least by my personal opinion.)

But I assure you, both terms are quite scriptural, even if the terms themselves do not appear in the Scriptures, because the base words from which they are taken, and their meanings, do appear in most translations. "Excommunication" is also scriptural, but it is also very formal and does not carry with it the personal impact upon the individual or the congregation. It also does not carry the full extent to which one is to stop interacting with the person. "Resign" is neither a Scriptural term nor does it carry any of the impact of what is taking place. "Disfellowship" and "disassociate" give full indication of the complete separation to take place between our members and those who pose a spiritual danger to our members.

The Scriptures are clear about this practice, even if they do not give a name to it. It clearly involves not speaking to the person, not eating with the person, not associating with them in any way, even revoking their admittance into the congregation while they continue in their state. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 John 10-11)

Giving a name to ideas is an acceptable practice. Just because an idea does not have a name in the Scriptures does not mean we should not name it. Naming things, just as naming anyone or anything else, dignifies it and makes it easily referable for convenience.

"He was disfellowshipped" is simply more convenient to say, if a little less natural, than "he was removed from the congregation." Likewise, "he disassociated himself" is easier than "he has withdrawn his membership", and saying "he has stopped associating with us", which is also not as convenient to say, does not quite carry with it the full depth of the matter.

I hope I have been a little clearer than mud.

Your friend seems to be seeking wiggle room to choose to associate with a disfellowshipped / disassociated individual. This is dangerous thinking for both him and the one whom we seek to bring to repentance, as the goal is to sadden the individual into repenting, which they do not get if they still have fellowship. (2 Corinthians 7:8-11) I would suggest gently correcting your friend's thinking. (2 Timothy 2:24-26) [July 24, 2016 at 12:43 am]

Also, regarding the words "basically, get baptized again", the fact is that we are already dedicated to Jehovah and know what is required of us. Once we have made that dedication, there is no going back on it. We can either fulfill that dedication or not.

To dedicate anew suggests one was never dedicated in the first place, which would be false. They made their dedication, and simply by returning, it demonstrates their desire to fulfill that dedication once again. They can ask Jehovah for forgiveness and his help to live up to their dedication, but their dedication has not been revoked. They are being held to it by Jehovah.

Re-dedication is not needed, is unscriptural and is technically lacking accountability for their previous dedication and accountability is a serious matter with Jehovah. (Romans 14:12) We are the ones with the responsibility to live up to our first dedication.

To dedicate ourselves again is to declare ourselves innocent of failing to live up to our previous dedication. Such presumptuousness is unscriptural. (Isaiah 43:25) Simply by returning to fulfilling our dedication, Jehovah has promised to give us his forgiveness. (Revelation 2:4, 5)

Also, who would want to go through the hassle of answering the baptismal questions again? If they were out for 40 years, perhaps, but not for most. There's no need to make it more difficult for them to return. All that is needed is for them to live up to the dedication they already made. [July 24, 2016 at 1:37 am]

ResignationStation wrote [July 24, 2016 at 12:41 pm]:

Thanks JWA for putting my thoughts into words regarding rebaptism, and scriptures. His idea didn't sound right to me.

I don't think he is trying to seek wiggle room regarding disfellowshipping, I think he is more concerned about us being akin to a "captive organization" as described by Angus Stewart in the ARC hearing. The brother is from Australia. I wish I could just give him your email and then you could correspond, but I won't do that because I  think you have enough on your plate. But I, myself, have a few questions I would like to run past you as well. I will do that in the next email. Have to get ready for the meeting.

JW Advisor: The JW Advisor site is all about answering questions. I'd be glad to answer his questions. It doesn't take me very long to answer most questions. Thank you for being considerate, though. A stop-gap is welcome if you just want to forward the tough questions to me. [July 24, 2016 at 3:09 pm]

JW Advisor: I wonder if Mr. Stewart of the Australian Royal Commission considers Australia a "captive country". After all, it has laws, police, courts, judges, and prisons so there is no true "freedom of movement" there according the definition they are applying to Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses do not imprison wrong-doers nor do we have an armed police force.

Leaving the option to shun up to the individual members poses a couple problems I immediately identified:

1) Its not at all scriptural and...

2) Unrepentant wrong-doers would essentially be allowed to influence the congregation and would have no incentive to clean up their lives.

To address point 2 by drawing a comparison, would it be acceptable for citizens of a country to choose which laws they would obey according to their own conscience [without repercussions]? Of course not, because it would allow criminals to operate with impunity. Likewise, in the Christian Congregation, allowing individuals to basically pick and chose who to shun would allow unrepentant wrong-doers full association with anyone who does not shun them, and the entire congregation (organization) would be at risk of losing God's favor. (Revelation 2:20)

The Governing Body has no interest in forcing people to be here. The motivation behind the shunning arrangement is to maintain the spiritual and moral purity of the Christian Congregation. [July 25, 2016 at 12:09 am]