Posted by Friend [Friend] on March 28, 1999 at 19:14:12 {OgnjR4Br/gTjRgdSJTpUMWUagf9NbHbU2}:
In Reply to: K Hall sold to Church!why ok? posted by whereisthetruth on March 28, 1999 at 14:07:26:
whereisthetruth
I know that when you are a JW, you are expected to turn down any work or business that is connected with a church, so how can they sell a building to them?
No, individuals among Jehovah�s Witnesses are not expected to turn down any work connected with a church. In fact, some of Jehovah�s Witnesses are presently employed as school teachers by religious institutions.
In the cases mentioned the individual is working on property owned by organizations carrying on unscriptural practices. But does this of itself mean that such work is to be condemned? One might call to mind the exhortation to "get out from among them, and separate yourselves . . . and quit touching the unclean thing." (2 Cor. 6:17) Are we to understand this as meaning that the ground itself or the buildings owned by such organizations are contaminating? Or is it not really the practices themselves that are "unclean" in God�s sight?
Outward appearances are not always the determining factors. The Syrian Naaman, for example, determined that he would "no more render up a burnt offering or a sacrifice to any other gods but to Jehovah." Yet, in his position as a servant to the king of Syria, part of Naaman�s work consisted of entering the temple of a false god, Rimmon, with the king and supporting the king (evidently somewhat feeble) as he bowed down to the idol. Naaman appears to have performed this service with some degree of regularity. Yet, when he expressed conscientious concern about this matter, God�s prophet Elisha replied: "Go in peace." (2 Ki. 5:15-19) True, an observer might assume by what he saw that Naaman was a worshiper of the false god Rimmon. But if he talked with the man he would find out otherwise.
Is it grounds for being DFD if you do business with a church? Seems like I read somewhere that it was. I know I turned down work that had to do with churches. I could have used the work at the time too, to support my family.
No, it is not necessarily grounds for disfellowshipping; it could be though. It depends upon whether the position (or business) constitutes preaching false doctrine. On the other hand, while in most cases employment (or business) with a "false religious organization" will not result in disfellowshipping, it can lead to loss of "privileges" depending upon how the friends locally view things.
So what's the deal? Is this another double standard or what?
I don�t see any double standard on this subject. In either case friends decide locally what to do.
This is a matter for the brothers locally to decide. There does not appear to be any direct Scriptural objection to doing so. It is not a matter of cooperating in a religious way with representatives of false religion. It is a one-time real estate deal.
Of course, if some in the congregation are bothered in conscience because of such buying or selling, then this can be taken into consideration so as not to stumble anyone.
Renting a Kingdom Hall from a religious organization, however, requires close constant relationship with representatives of false religion. There is a month-to-month contact in paying the rent and in the discussions regarding repairs and upkeep. Also, renting from a false religious organization might indicate to onlookers that there is not the distinct difference between the truth and false religion that we claim there is. It is best to avoid such rental arrangements.
It is up to the brothers locally to decide if they should rent a pool from a false religious organization on a one-time basis for an assembly baptism. The same is true of renting an auditorium for an assembly. It is best to make other arrangements, if possible.
Friend