Paging Jehovah's Witnesses and bible scholars: need a few things cleared up

Great Debates
61

I just saw your second post, I will respond to it a bit later. This is in response to the former:
Please don’t thank me for my measured tone- I have typed every word with dread that I am offending you beyond forgiveness. I am aware that my manner throughout our discussions has come across as accusatory- but my questions come from an honest place, and I cannot thank you enough for the clarity you have brought to this subject. You are answering years of questions that I could never ask my two good JW witness friends because I would not want either Angela or Robert to feel that I am disrespectful of their choices. I do not want to put either of them on the spot or force them to defend their beliefs. I am also fully aware of the contributions and good intent of Jehovah’s Witness, and though the practice of isolation and disfellowshipping worries and confounds me, I see no malice in any JW behaviors or activities. (I hope you had a chance to see Knocking, the PBS series I mentioned earlier- it is truly enlightening.)

And let me add that in spite of my biased tone, I am happy to live in a country in which all adults in this country are free to make the choices to worship in whatever way they choose, and I would defend your right to avoid government dealings as readily as I would defend my own right to vote.
As far as the parallels that I see in the short story The Lottery:

  1. The entire population is involved in shunning, even the children. Every member of the congregation has committed an act of shunning as a matter of routine since childhood. And the disfellowshipped person is equally impeachable, since he or she also committed acts of shunning. (Everyone in the village has thrown a stone; all equally culpable for the act- including the person who is being stoned.)

  2. The congregation is so isolated from the outside world and deliberately so, and all share a quiet knowledge that entering the outside world will mean excommunication from the known and familiar. Do people stay in the church (village) because they are happy, or because they fear the alternative?

  3. Disfellowshipping- being driven out of your familiar, closed environment and shunned by your family is at the very least: an emotional death. It isn’t a stoning, but a condemnation and a sentence to isolation and rejection.

My overall view is that the act of disfellowshipping is such a frightening, dreadful, and thorough prospect that the individual Witness has little opportunity to question his or her faith. The very consistency that you laud practically ensures that doubts or fundamental disagreements will go unvoiced. What of those people? To me, it boils down to believe and practice exactly as we direct: or get out.

62

raindog, this discussion is intense, and I’ve a huge garden that begs my attention. If I have overlooked a point or question that you have made, please recall it to my attention. I am not intentionally skipping any portion- be assured that I am carefully considering all you have shared.

[QUOTE=the raindog]
Being disfellowshipped is difficult to be sure. But it seems to me that you are overstaing your case here, by a wide margin. JWs live in the world, they are friends, workmates, and classmates. It is entirely true that they are an insular society; that witnesses are encouraged to use discretion in their friendships and associations. The practical result of this is that most witnesses have witnesses as their closest friends and associations.

[/QUOTE]

Through Angela and Robert, I have heard many stories of the disfellowshipped, and I haven’t heard of any easy transitions. There are in fact numerous ex-JW resources such as message boards, printed publications, and in my hometown, there is an ex Witness underground railroad of sorts in which ex members offer their homes to the disfellowshipped. In contrast, I have never heard of an ex-Methodist or ex-Unitarian resource.

[QUOTE=the raindog]
I would have to disagree with your assesments. Surely some who are disfellowshipped struggle. You may desribe Robert as an “awkward, timid, incompetent person who is ill prepared to survive in the World”, but for some who are disfellowshipped no such thing happens. (and to the extent it may have happened with Robert, it is likely it is/was a result of personality, not his faith. I believe you ascribe too many things to the FW faith that are really the pecularities of human beings) While some grieve—and find themselves stuck between the congregation (which they are at least temporarily not an active part of) and the world they feel little kinship with, many others put on their party dress and hit the town. I know many former JWs who left and never missed a beat. Among many others, they go about their day to day lives as they did before. They go to work, maintain friendships and go about their lives. Many/most begin the process of brining their lives back into harmony with biblical principles. I don’t think you give humans (in this case Robert) credit for having a will. Those who return are never “forced” into anything. Robert considers his life as a JW superior to the alternative. You maintain that he is serving Jehovah out of fear and intimidation, I say respectfully you don’t know what you are talking about. Interestingly enough, Robert disagrees with you as well. In your own words, you note that Robert defends the practice—a practice he ultimately experienced.
[/QUOTE]

Robert *must * defend the practice- he is guilty of shunning ex-members as part of his religious practice, and would have no integrity whatsoever if he agreed that the act of disfellowshipping is as abominable as it appears to me.

[QUOTE=the raindog]

Do you work in a large organization; and, do you make policy? Does your job require you to interface with the federal or local government for funding etc?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, we work with federal and state agencies, often writing and requesting grants, and spend 50% or more of our time in family court. Robert is skipped for many tasks because his knowledge of politics and protocol causes him to both miss opportunities and occasionally offend those entities and agencies that we work with. (like Family Planning, for example, and PFLAG)

[QUOTE=the raindog]

I am a witness. My closest friends are witnesses, and they are the people I choose as my closest asssociations. Nonetheless, I have other friends that I know from work, and other places that I count as friends. In this regard, I choose to not have friends who use [extensive] profanity, make off-color or racial comments and jokes, show a lack of integrity, are cheats, liars etc etc. You may find that to be sinister, but many other groups are insular. I have afluent customers who live in afluent neighborhoods whose lives are stunning in their lack of diversity. It is their choice. You may see it as horrible, but ‘birds of a feather, do flock togeher.’

[/QUOTE]

Of course I see nothing sinister in like attracts like. Most of my own friends reflect my attitudes and values. Humans in general operate the same way, regardless of faith. What I perceive as* injust * is that the structure is so purposefully and intensively rigid and insular that leaving the church for whatever reason would be a far more daunting and intimidating task than staying immersed in a belief that one no longer shares.

63

Interestingly enough, I have worried that I was/would offend you as well. I have edited several passages as they seemed too snarky. (I can be acerbic at times; something I work on in my personaility. See comments to Sunrazor and Mike Fun for minor examples) Please understand my intentions are good, and accept my apology if I have—or will—strike a nerve. I appreciate the opportunity to converse, and while we may not agree on some or most things, we will both have a better understanding of each other’s beliefs.

I am equally busy, and must run. Work calls. I will post as time allows, and there are still things to talk about.

Till then…