Shunning - Unchristian Psychological Torture November 11, 2013
Jesus shared a meal with a 'notorious sinner', the publican Zaccheus
VII - Did Jesus shun sinners?
Every Christian is urged to become ‘imitator of the Lord’. (1 Thessalonians 1:6) What do we learn by the example of Jesus regarding the way to deal with sinners?
For example, the gospel according to Luke tells us of a woman known in the community for her immoral lifestyle who approached Jesus and anointed his feet. She recognized her need for redemption from sin and showed by her actions that she truly appreciated the person through whom God provided that redemption. But she was still living a sinful way of life. Yet, Jesus did not shun her because she hadn’t yet shown “works of repentance”. He could see her heart in a way no human judge can, but yet, he set the example to his disciples who one day would judge sinners in the congregation, by not shunning sinners. He told her in a most kind way: “Your sins are forgiven” – Luke 7:49
Tax collectors were poorly regarded in Israel during Jesus’ lifetime, because not only they collected tax money to their foreign opressors, but often they were unscrupulous, taking more money than what was due from the population. For this, they were regarded as notorious sinners and traitors of the nation. However, contrary to popular practice, Jesus didn’t shun these people either. We read:
“Tax collectors and other notorious sinners often came to listen to Jesus teach. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." Luke 15:1, 2
Jesus didn’t mind being called “a friend of tax collectors and sinners”. (Luke 7:34) He knew better the difference between shunning a person’s wrongful conduct, and shunning the person itself. He firmly condemned sin, but he was merciful towards sinners, encouraging them instead to repent and change. He shared a meal with the publican Zaccheus at his house, and invited the publican Matthews to be one of his apostles. To his holier-than-thou detractors, he said:
“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 15:1-10
Jesus’ disciples had a powerful example of tolerance in his Master. Even towards his unrepentant foes, the Pharisees and Sadducees and Scribes, Jesus didn’t shun them. He kept exchanging arguments with them, sometimes with strong words, but he didn’t treat them as if they were dead. This reaped good results: After his death, some of the Pharisees embraced Christianity. (Acts 15:5) When many disciples became outraged with the Lord's words about 'eating his flesh and drinking his blood' and quit following him, Jesus could have taken the opportunity to instruct his apostles to shun those who left, but he didn't. (John 6:60-70) Jesus not even shunned Judas, despite that during the last supper he was aware that his apostle had betrayed him for money. (John 13:2, 11) Why, Jesus didn’t shun Satan, the most unrepentant of God’s enemies! - Matthew 4:1-11
Following his rebuke of the Pharisees for their derogatory remark regarding his association with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus went on to tell one of his most powerful lessons: the parable of the prodigal son. The story had two parts, here’s the stretch of Luke 15:11-32 :
Typically, a son would only access his inheritance upon his father’s death. Reclaiming his share of the state while his father was still living revealed a rebel, immature and selfish attitude, not to mention an astonishing disrespect for his father’s authority. But soon his foolish choices would bring him into hardships.
Away from the mature guidance and security of his father’s household, the son not only squandered his resources, but he began to experience hard times, even food shortage, hitting a rock bottom low when he was forced to attend pigs, an unclean animal, wishing to eat what they ate, and no one gave him anything.
The younger son finally awakes to the misery of his situation. He comes to his senses and realizes that he should go back to his father’s household, for even one of the servants has a better living than he does. He gathers courage and makes his way back to his father’s house, humbled.
The father sees him while he's still at a distance, and, filled with compassion, runs to meet and greet his younger son back. He cares not for the speech that his son had prepared. Without further delay, he orders the preparation of a feast to celebrate the return of his son to the household. The rest of the parable deals with the reaction of the older son; it’s not relevant for this article, so I’ll leave it out.
What lessons do we learn from this parable that are pertinent to the issue of shunning?
The father represents our heavenly Father. His household represents the Christian congregation. The younger son represents everyone who, with a rebellious attitude and disregard for counseling, leave the congregation to the world outside to pursue an unchristian, ungodly way of life. For a while, these sons of God appear to enjoy an illusive freedom to do as they please outside the congregation. However, as Peter wrote:
“When people escape from the wickedness of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up and enslaved by sin again, they are worse off than before.” - 2 Peter 2:19, 20
Eventually, the spiritual condition of many who leave degrades, as unwise choices are made, life circumstances shift and world conditions take unexpected turns. Some find themselves hitting personal rock bottom lows, far from the congregation, embarassed and helpless. This is when many come to their senses and realize that they’d be better off in the congregation after all, and they make a painful journey back to the ‘household’ of their Father.
The father is a picture of the Heavenly Father, Jehovah. Just as the Father depicted in the parable, God often indulges us, yielding what is his and allowing us to misuse it out of respect for the freedom of choice that he has given us, even if we sometimes are boldly insulting towards him. But he knows that the misuse of our freedom will have no better results than it did with the prodigal son's misuse of his freedom, and God trusts that we will learn our lesson and come back to him. Thus, God awaits patiently, with loving compassion to restore his wayward sons and daughters when they return to him with humble hearts. He then offers them everything in his household, restoring full relationship with joyful celebration. He doesn't even dwell on the past waywardness.
When Jesus told this story, if he was teaching his disciples to shun those who leave the congregation, would he mention that the Father, while the son was still away in the distance, ran to meet him? Wouldn’t he say something to the effect that the Father waited for him by the gate? But instead, the Father went outside to reach for his son. The reason? The Father was “filled with compassion” for his wayward child. Before his son finished his pre-scripted speech, the Father interrupts him and takes the conversation into a very different direction, something that even the son didn’t expect – a celebration is ordered to welcome the homecoming son. The father doesn’t treat him like a lowly servant. He is still a son! And did Jesus mention that the Father gave strict orders to those servants in his household to refrain from talking with the younger son until he has shown enough penitence? On the contrary! Everyone should rejoyce and celebrate, because the son that was spiritually dead was now living again!
What message was the Lord conveying with this powerful story? This: No disciple of Christ should treat his brother or sister that went astray from the congregation as if they were as good as dead. God certainly doesn’t do that, and each one of us is urged to “follow God's example, therefore, as dearly loved children.” (Ephesians 5:1) The example he sets is to be patient and compassionate with those who have left, in hopes that someday they may come back to their senses, leave their mortal sins behind and attain salvation.
Jesus didn’t shun sinners. The three parables that he told in reply to the accusation that he welcomed sinners and tax collectors and ate with them – the prodigal son, the lost coin, the lost sheep – all convey the idea that they are lost, and he wants to recover them. Jesus greeted, talked and shared meals with those known sinners, because he wanted to recover them. He didn’t treat them with silence and avoidance, as if to ashame them, hoping that shame, guilt and solitude would accomplish winning them. This just wasn’t Christ’s way to do things.
When he gave advice about solving problems within the congregation, he specified three stages. The last stage would be to bring the matter to the attention of the congregation. What should the congregation do if the wrongdoer wouldn’t repent? Jesus said:
“If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you.” – Matthew 18:17 - HSCB
What was Jesus saying here? Many Bible commentators point out that pious Jews wouldn’t have civil nor religious conversations with gentiles, nor with a ‘notorious sinner’ - such as a tax collector of his day - and much less would have a meal together or enjoy friendly and familiar acquaintance. In this perspective, it would seem logical that shunning would be the way to treat those who leave the congregation. This is the current official teaching of the Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
However, this fails to take into account the obvious: What example should Christ’s disciples imitate - his example, or that of the holier-than-thou Jewish leaders? John wrote:
“Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.” - 1 John 2:6 NLT
Many other Bible verses urge us to have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. (Phillipians 2:3-8; 2 Corinthians 3:18; John 15:9-11; 1 Corinthians 11:1) If Jesus didn’t shun sinners, nor has he instructed us to do so, should we go and shun those who were disfellowshipped, treating them as if they were “as good as dead”, non-existent? That’s entirely the un-Christian thing to do.
Yet, despite all evidence, the Watchtower Society and its leadership would have the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that their authority is such, that they can have the audacity to blatantly reverse the very words of Jesus: “Love your enemies”. How so? The following is a passage of the Watchtower in 1961:
"Jesus encouraged his followers to love their enemies, but God's Word also says to "hate what is bad." When a person persists in a way of badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of his make-up, then in order to hate what is bad a Christian must hate the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked." The Watchtower 1961 July 15 p.420
When someone claiming to be invested with theocratic authority twists the legitimate words from divine origin, to mean something that they don’t, in order to make them suit their own doctrinal agenda, isn’t that the same thing that the Pharisees were guilty of? “Because of your traditions you have destroyed the authority of God's word”, accused Jesus. (Mark 7:13 GWT) Each Christian, individually, should ask itself the same question that Peter and John asked the judges of the Sanhedrin:
“Which is right in God's eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!” – Acts 4:19 NIV