Why Can’t Ex Jehovah’s Witnesses Just Move On?

lifted from http://exjw.wordpress.com/

you go girl….

Posted by Moxie

Just Move On Already!

…I often hear comments like this. “You should just move on and let the past be the past.” I have to agree that in many cases that is often the very best advice. So why is it that former Jehovah’s Witnesses have such a difficult time moving on with their lives? Why can they never seem to completely let go, even years or decades after they have left the Watchtower Society? Why am I here talking about this nine years after I left the Jehovah’s Witnesses? My aim is to discuss and possibly answer those questions by talking about what I know; my personal experiences…

Is Blood Really Thicker Than Water?

“Blood is thicker than water.” As you know that’s a famous old English proverb which implies the widely accepted sentiment that the bonds of family are stronger than the bonds between unrelated people. I am only one among literally thousands of others that are living proof that statement is not always true. When it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses that statement could be revised to saying: Religion is thicker than Blood.

While many have experiences that differ, the most common issue that former Jehovah’s Witnesses share is the absolute and devastating separation from their families. The Watchtower strips former members of any relationships they had with friends and family members upon their leaving the society. Members are taught to hate and shun former Jehovah’s Witnesses (persons who have disassociated themselves or who have been disfellowshipped). There are no exceptions and there is no statute of limitations. The penalty for ignoring this teaching? They risk being disfellowshipped themselves.

The Watchtower of April 15, 1988 (available online at www.Watchtower.org, or you may download it in PDF format by clicking here) tells its members how they should treat a person who deviates from “the path of truth” or in other words the teachings of the Watchtower. They describe such an individual:

one who unrepentantly violates God’s laws, or
one who rejects the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses by teaching doctrine contrary to the Watchtower, or
an individual who disassociates themselves from the congregation (for any reason).

So the spectrum of sins which qualify one for disfellowshipping and/or shunning is very broad indeed. I know of young women who have been disfellowshipped and shunned because they didn’t scream while they were being raped (one of the Watchtowers constantly changing doctrines). I know of people who have chosen to distance or disassociate themselves because they didn’t agree with or questioned some of the teachings of the Watchtower. And I knew of individuals who were disfellowshipped because of adultery or fornication. Surely any group, sect or religion has the right to disfellowship or excommunicate an individual for not conforming to the set expectations, but do they have the right to enforce shunning? Do they have the right to literally break apart and dissolve families? Do they have the right to threaten their members with disfellowshipping themselves if they even speak to a former member?

From the Horse’s Mouth

What exactly does the Watchtower tell its members about how to treat such persons? Again, referring to their own article I quote:

When a man in Corinth was unrepentantly immoral, Paul told the congregation: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)…

Obviously the above excerpt is discussing individuals who have engaged in gross wrongdoing or unrepentant misconduct. Note the reference “not even eating with such a man”, as I will talk about this a little further on. The Watchtower article continues by saying:

The same was to occur with apostates, such as Hymenaeus: “As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning.” (Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20)

The Watchtower uses these scriptural references to teach their members to reject someone who promotes a sect (a group of people with different religious beliefs, or a group with extreme or dangerous philosophical or political ideas - Oxford Dictionary). They define a person who commits this sin as an apostate; the most dreaded of all sinners. However it is interesting to note that the word apostate is literally defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a person who renounces a belief or principle. It is evident that the use of the word apostate is severely misused and exaggerated and therefore the essence of this teaching is flawed. Nevertheless the article goes on:

Such shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort.”—1 John 2:18, 19.

Now I find this particular line of reasoning very interesting. Why? Because they make the fantastic claim that shunning is appropriate for someone who simply “went out from us”. But where is the scriptural support for such a claim? Here they lump in everything from apostacy, promoting sects, gross and unrepentent wrongdoing with simply rejecting the congregation or teachings of the Watchtower as worthy of equal punishment, namely shunning. I recall being admonished from the Watchtower, from the podium and from my parents that you should not greet a disfellowshipped person, you should not even eat a meal with such a person. I can tell you from personal experience, both on the inside and the outside, that there is absolutely no distinction made between the “crime” and the punishment. Indeed it seems a long line to be drawn does it not? The claim that shunning is appropriate for someone who simply leaves the Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses perhaps because they question or do not agree with some of the teachings. I fail to see any scriptural support for this, only a long line drawn by the Watchtower, a doctrine that a Jehovah’s Witness dare not challenge.

Another little gem from this article, which when I read it nearly caused my jaw to hit the floor. To summarize, the Watchtower contends that since some willful sinners were executed in the time of the Isrealites, God’s people were no longer able to speak to them (since they were dead). Therefore, today, Jehovah’s Witnesses should not speak with wrongdoers; as though they are dead figuratively. Well we can’t stone them to death in this day and age, so let’s just pretend.

Lastly the Watchtower article discusses how individuals are to treat disfellowshipped or disassociated members of their family:

God certainly realizes that carrying out his righteous laws about cutting off wrongdoers often involves and affects relatives. As mentioned above, when an Israelite wrongdoer was executed, no more family association was possible. In fact, if a son was a drunkard and a glutton, his parents were to bring him before the judges, and if he was unrepentant, the parents were to share in the just executing of him, ‘to clear away what is bad from the midst of Israel.’ (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) You can appreciate that this would not have been easy for them. Imagine, too, how the wrongdoer’s brothers, sisters, or grandparents felt. Yet, their putting loyalty to their righteous God before family affection could be lifesaving for them.

For once I am practically speechless. Here the Watchtower is telling its followers to cut off their family members, as though they had been executed for wrongdoing. Reading that sends a chill up my spine. But let’s dig a little deaper. This scripture, if you read it in it’s entire context is talking about stoning a rebellious child who is not listening to his father’s voice, specifically one who is a drunkard and a glutton. So it could stand to reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses think that fat people and someone who suffers from alcholism should be put to death. Well, again we can’t actually kill them, so let’s just take this out of context, apply it to any sin we want and pretend we’re putting them to death! I apologize for the tongue-and-cheek, but I couldn’t resist.

Life Without Family - An Analogy

So how does this all relate to why former Jehovah’s Witnesses rarely seem to be able to just “move on”?

Consider this analogy. Let’s say that you grew up in a very warm and caring family. You share close and loving relationships with both your parents and your siblings. Now let’s say for the sake of argument that your father is a Republican. Following his lead the entire family has always voted that way and often engaged in political discussions, putting their confidence in that Party. Now let’s say that you decide one day that you’re not a Republican after all. You’ve realized that you actually prefer the Democrats. So you tell your father that you voted for the Democrats in the last election. Now depending on the family you might expect any number of responses. Religion and politics are always highly debatable and often passionate topics. But one thing you would never expect: The Republicans phoning up your father, mother, siblings and all your friends, telling them that they have to kick you out of the house, they’re not allowed to greet you, they can never speak with you, no they cannot even eat a meal with you, in fact, since they can’t actually kill you they should pretend that you are dead. And lastly, if they dare do any of those things, the Republicans will come after them too!

Obviously that scenario is highly laughable and outright ridiculous. But imagine yourself in just that situation. You’ve been shunned by your family. You’re not welcome in their home. They will not speak with you or eat with you. How would you react? Could you just get over it? Would you be able to simply forget the family you loved so deeply and move on with life? Would you not agonize over the loss of your family and try everything you can to understand why or how this could have happened. Remember, you have not had a falling out, rather you simply didn’t agree with party politics and changed you allegiance, it had nothing to do with your family. It was the Republicans who imposed and enforced these sanctions. Would you not be pained over your family’s suffering too, since they are undoubtedly also grieving the loss of you, but dare not contradict the Party.

I know it is a silly analogy, but I try to relate it here in terms that aren’t to do with religion just to demonstrate how absurd this type of behavior is and just how frightening and damaging it is.

What It Really Feels Like

I like many others was a child raised in the Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As you can see from the Watchtower’s own mouth, anyone who leaves because they reject the teachings of the Watchtower is to be shunned by everyone, including their family. As flawed as this teaching is, it is regrettably ahered to by millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the globe. I, like so many others were destined to be bannished from our families simply because we didn’t agree with the some of the teachings of the Watchtower and felt for one reason or another that we didn’t want to be a part of that religion. Unless we remain one of Jehovah’s Witnesses we will lose our families and our friends.

There are never words to express the pain of it. My family is right there, but always just beyond my reach. I love them still with all my heart, and I know they love me. I feel cheated because I never got to have those little mother/daughter talks, wasn’t there to see my brothers grow from boys to young men, I didn’t see my father’s hair turn gray… my family wouldn’t even come to my wedding. The pain on both sides is unmeasurable. And again, we can’t forget, there was never a falling out, rather, a great ocean has been placed between us by the Watchtower; an ocean that cannot be bridged or crossed.

Why can’t I just move on? The answer is that I try, I have tried - but it doesn’t work. I tried to forget them. I tried to be angry at them. I tried to forgive them. I tried not to feel. It all comes back to taking one day at a time, trying to make a life and make sense of all the crazy things that happen in this world. My family and the love I have for them is at the heart of me. If I cast that aside I would be a cold and lifeless thing. So I try to live my life in a way that in all repects (other than religion) would make them proud. I find peace in being able to help others by telling my story; a story that can be repeated by about 50,000 people every year who are disfellowshipped from the Watchtower Society. My heart breaks for my family, and my heart breaks for the countless others. I suppose I feel too much, but I like that about myself and I try to channel it into something good and positive.

May 29, 2008 Posted by Admin Staff | Christianity, Disassociation, Disfellowshipping, Jehovahs Witnesses, Religion | | 4 Comments

Disfellowshipping and consequences

Cast out: Religious shunning provides an unusual background in the Longo and Bryant slayings

The Register-Guard/March 2, 2003
By Karen McCowan

Shunning — In the eyes of most Oregonians, it’s an unfamiliar, even archaic, practice - a throwback to the era of “The Scarlet Letter.” Yet it provided a bizarre backdrop for two recent familicides that occurred here just two months and 75 miles apart.

Shunning is not a topic that typically arises when detectives interview a murder suspect.

But Christian Longo, accused in the December 2001 killings of his wife, MaryJane, and their three children, raised shunning as the reason they moved to Oregon, so far from friends and family in Michigan.

After McMinnville resident Robert Bryant killed his wife, Janet, their four children and himself in February 2002, Janet’s sister also cited the practice, saying it helped create the isolation and despair that drove Robert - “a loving and dedicated husband” - to snap.

Both families were members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who say shunning is an act of love intended to inspire repentence and a return to right living.

Officially, the practice is known as “disfellowshipping.” The word may sound less drastic than the “excommunication” of the Roman Catholic Church, but the practice goes far beyond denying sacraments to those cast out.

J.R. Brown, national spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Society, explained it in straightforward fashion:

“Basically, it is a discipline that is applied by the congregation,” he said in a recent interview. “Its purpose is to correct what is wrong or at variance with the scriptures … We base it on what is in the Bible, I Corinthians 5 and 6: `Neither receive him into your home, or say a greeting to him or share a meal with him.’ All spiritual relations and all social relationships are severed - and, by extension, business relationships.”

Defense attorney Ken Hadley said he expected “more to come” out on Christian Longo’s disfellowshipping when Longo’s murder trial begins this month, and prospective jurors were quizzed about their knowledge of the practice.

Scholars who’ve studied the Jehovah’s Witnesses use terms such as “psychologically devastating” to describe the impact of shunning - particularly on those who’ve known only the Jehovah’s Witness faith.

None of the researchers interviewed for this story suggested the experience was a rationale for murder.

“I’m not familiar with any case when it was shown scientifically or social scientifically to be a cause of homicide” said Denver University religious studies professor Carl Raschke. “People are shunned, ostracized all the time without doing this.”

In fact, one sociologist who has studied the Witnesses suggested that the disfellowshippings preceding the Longo and Bryant familicides were simply signs of coming trouble.

“People don’t get disfellowshipped for nothing,” said University of Washington sociology professor Rodney Stark [often referred to as a "cult apologist"] . “It seems far more likely that, rather than disfellowshipping being a cause, it was just one more symptom of someone with serious problems.”

But other researchers said the isolation and tension inherent in disfellowshipping can also create emotional distress.

In their book “The Orwellian World of Jehovah’s Witnesses” (University of Toronto Press, 1984), former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting call the group’s disfellowshipping “a form of social and spiritual ostracism, the effects of which are legendary.”

“Jehovah’s Witnesses have a closed society in that they try to ensure that the majority of their friends and acquaintances are from within the congregation,” they wrote. “If a Witness should be disfellowshipped, he not only loses most of his friends, but also finds himself out in the world with limited employment opportunities.

“The very focus of his `spiritual education’ that makes him successful as a Witness leads to difficulties in coping with the larger world.”

Witnesses are taught that “the external world must be regarded as inimical, hostile and ugly, as a primary `enemy,’ ” the couple contended. “A move into that alien world is a frightening and painful experience” even for those who leave voluntarily, having prepared for the break, they said.

For those forced out suddenly, they wrote, the break can be “psychologically disruptive.”

Ironically, it is the extraordinary support within groups such as the Witnesses that makes being cast out so devastating, said Julius Rubin, a sociology professor at Connecticut’s St. Joseph College. His book “The Other Side of Joy” probed the effects of shunning in another group that practices it, the Bruderhof.

Being a Jehovah’s Witness is not just a matter of gathering for an hour or two on Sunday mornings, he said. Rather, the congregation’s cocoon of fellowship extends to study and door-to-door evangelism throughout the week, to informal socializing - even to business and employment referrals.

“They do remarkable things for each other,” Rubin said. “They take care of their own. That’s why shunning is absolutely horrible, not only for the individual, but for the family. They feel that they’ve been cast into this unredeemed world and its hopeless sinfulness. At every level, they lose support - social, financial, spiritual.

“I can’t emphasize too much how devastating it is. You go from this warm, close-knit, loving group where the church is much of your life to a disciplining in which your own father and mother will systematically shun you.”

Brown, the church’s spokesman, confirmed that even immediate family is expected to avoid contact with the disfellowshipped, except those living in the same household.

He also acknowledged that the practice is intended to be painful.

“Its purpose is to correct,” he said. “The proof that it does correct is every year we have thousands that correct their ways and come back - apply for reinstatement.”

Some 40,000 to 50,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses are disfellowshipped each year, out of 6 million worldwide, Brown said. Some 20,000 to 25,000 are “warmly welcomed back” each year after repenting, he added.

“It is not viewed by us as something unloving, but as a means of bringing the sinner back to his senses,” Brown said.

Shunning raised early

When Lincoln County detectives asked Christian Longo why he moved his family to Oregon, he immediately raised the issue of his disfellowshipping in late 2000.

“Primarily everything was getting too stressful in Michigan, with everybody being so close,” he said, according to the court transcript of a January 2002 jailhouse interview. “It was a little ways before that time that I was disfellowshipped from the religious aspect of our life. And everybody was kind of compounding on us from that level.”

A spokesman for his former Kingdom Hall in Ypsilanti, Mich., said Longo was “put out” after being convicted of forgery and writing more than $30,000 in bad checks.

One relationship severed as a result was with his own father, an elder in the congregation, Longo told detectives.

He also said Kingdom Hall members were visiting MaryJane at home, suggesting that she consider “maintaining a little bit more of a separation from me, not just outside, but even within the household, just being a little bit more distant than she probably was … Still being a wife, but not being so devoted to sticking by everything that I did.”

The couple concluded they “needed to distance ourselves from that,” Longo said.

They moved to Toledo, Ohio, in the spring of 2001 - a development so alarming to MaryJane’s sisters that they drove to Toledo and begged her to return to Michigan, the Associated Press reported in January 2002. They took her to a restaurant so she could speak freely, but she insisted she would not leave her husband.

When her cell phone was disconnected later that year, the sisters again drove to Toledo. But the Longos had already moved on, leaving behind such sentimental treasures as family photo albums. MaryJane’s family filed a missing persons report, but withdrew it after postcards in her handwriting were mailed from South Dakota in November. She’d written that Longo was in a job training program and that she would send a new address once he got a permanent work assignment.

In fact, the family had been living in a succession of rental housing on the Oregon Coast. MaryJane was so isolated that neighbors at their last home, a Newport condominium, didn’t even know she and the children were living with Longo.

She was last seen alive Dec. 16 at a Salem furniture store, where a salesman remembered her as “aloof and weary.” Her body - and those of Zachery, 5, Sadie, 3, and Madison, 2 - would be discovered in coastal inlets Dec. 19, 22 and 27.

Striking Similarities

An eerily similar case would unfold just two months later and 75 miles away. Once again, a disfellowshipped former Jehovah’s Witness would relocate his family to Oregon. Once again, his wife and children would live in such isolation that no friend, neighbor or fellow church member would notice their absence and report them missing.

But - in a departure from the Longo case - Robert Bryant apparently took his own life after shooting his family.

In this case, Janet Bryant’s sister, Sharon Roe, raised the issue of disfellowshipping.

Roe, who’d attended the same Shingle Springs, Calif., Kingdom Hall as her sister and brother-in-law, said he was disfellowshipped in 1999 for apostasy, after renouncing some of the faith’s beliefs.

Congregation spokesman Mark Messier told reporters Robert Bryant had been cast out because of “unrepentant behavior” and “conduct not in harmony with the Bible’s principles.”

In a telephone interview with The Register-Guard, Roe said Robert Bryant had been an elder of their Kingdom Hall about three years when he began questioning the organization’s structure and beliefs.

His misgivings crystallized, she said, after he met a troubled young woman while distributing Watchtower literature; she told him she had been sexually abused by her father and the church failed to help her. He began reading the Bible on his own, she said, finding what he considered inconsistencies with Witness doctrine.

“They were very mad at him for questioning,” she recalled.

Church elders held a hearing which resulted in Robert’s disfellowshipping from a congregation that included his parents and siblings, Roe said.

While not officially disfellowshipped, Janet Bryant eventually opted to join her husband in staying away. She, too, experienced shunning, her sister said.

Janet was devastated when longtime friends refused to greet her at the grocery store, Roe said.

Meanwhile, Robert’s landscaping business suffered as family members quit working with him and he lost Jehovah’s Witness clients. In January of 2000, he filed for bankruptcy. Both Bryants developed stress-related health problems, Roe said.

She could understand, she said, having once been disfellowshipped after marrying outside the faith.

“It was horrible,” she said. “I had anxiety attacks, health problems. They brand you as the wickedest person on earth. Your whole realm of family and friends you’ve had since you were a little kid - gone.”

But the final straw came for her sister and brother-in-law when they heard rumors that his parents were exploring the possibility of court-ordered visitation so they could take their grandchildren to Kingdom Hall. “Robert was so upset, he was vomiting,” Roe recalled.

The couple quietly sold their home, Roe said, and she and her husband helped them pack their belongings to leave for Oregon in the middle of the night.

For a brief time the Bryants appeared to make a successful fresh start. In the long daylight hours and dry weather of Oregon summer, Robert found plenty of landscaping work. The couple obtained a loan to place a manufactured home on two acres west of McMinnville.

Then came the winter rains, however, and things got grim once again. By the time Roe came to visit over the Christmas holidays, Robert was telling Janet they had only enough money to last two more months.

” ‘After that, we’re going to starve,’ he told her,” Roe said. “Those were his exact words.”

Police believe Robert Bryant waited until Janet and their four children - Clayton, 15; Ethan, 12; Ashley, 10 and Alyssa, 9 - were asleep the night of Feb. 23, 2002 before shooting each at close range, then turning his gun on himself. The bodies were not discovered until March 14.

Divided Loyalties

Wives such as Janet Bryant and MaryJane Longo face a spiritual “no woman’s land” once their husbands are disfellowshipped, say those who have studied the Witnesses.

“In these two (Oregon) cases, I would speculate that the wife was caught in an almost intolerable tension between conflicting Biblical demands,” said David Weddle, a religion professor at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. “She can either remain faithful to the teaching and practice of this faith upon which her eternal salvation rests, or remain faithful to her husband, which she’s also taught to do by the same organization.”

Brown, the Jehovah’s Witness spokesman, did not speak specifically about the Oregon cases, except to call them “tragic.”

But he confirmed that the church teaches that “marriage ties remain in effect” even after a spouse is disfellowshipped.

“They are still `one flesh,’ ” he said. “The only thing that changes between the husband and wife is the spiritual nature of the relationship - The Jehovah’s Witness would discontinue studying scripture or spiritual discussion with the spouse.”

Even a disfellowshipped husband is “the head of the house, according to the scriptures,” Brown added.

“Our advice would always be to the wife, `Well, you should cooperate with the head.’ “

Some of MaryJane Longo’s family members worried about her because she’d been raised in a faith that left a wife so completely in the power of her husband, true-crime writer Carlton Smith reported in an August 2002 Willamette Week.

As a Witness who still believed the church’s teachings, she could not simply find another denomination to join, noted Rick Ross of the Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements.

“You have to understand the mindset of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” said Ross, who has testified in Witness-related court cases.

“They teach that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, alone, is the connection to Jehovah God on Earth. All other churches, organizations and governments are part of the world system which is influenced by Satan,” he said.

So women such as MaryJane Longo and Janet Bryant, raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses, would probably feel they “really don’t have a choice but to live to themselves,” Weddle said.

Sharon Roe believes that spiritual legacy kept Janet Bryant isolated from outside relationships that might have saved her.

“They brainwash you to be afraid of the world, of any support out there,” Roe said. “Janet was afraid of making new friends.”

The fear may explain why three weeks passed before police, in the area on an unrelated burglary call, discovered the Bryants’ bodies. Likewise, authorities had no clue about the deaths of MaryJane Longo and her children until their bodies were discovered.

Atypical Domestic Violence

Katherine van Wormer, a University of Northern Iowa professor of social work, has long studied domestic violence homicides. The Longo and Bryant cases are “totally different” from the classic pattern, she said.

Usually, offenders are males killing a wife or girlfriend after a break-up. Typically, they have been batteriers, lashing out in “If I can’t have you, nobody can” violence, she said.

But those close to MaryJane Longo and Janet Bryant said there was never any hint of physical - even verbal -abuse before their killings.

Also, men in classic domestic violence slayings rarely kill their children, van Wormer noted. The two disfellowshipped fathers remind her more of the female perpetrators she has studied, whose victims are more typically their children. Their rationale is often more like, “If I can’t take care of you, nobody can,” van Wormer said.

Both men had expressed despair about their inability to provide for their families, she said. “They were taking the world on their shoulders, you might say,” she said. “They saw themselves as totally in charge and responsible. They couldn’t support their families, and life was getting worse and worse.”

Even with her sister dead at Robert Bryant’s hand, Roe refuses to characterize what he did as domestic violence. She insists that he had untreated depression and was “not in his right mind.”

“I have known him since age 15 and he was never a vengeful, angry person,” she said. “I never heard the man raise his voice to my sister.

“He was just desperate. He didn’t think he had a way out. And if he was not going to be able to take care of his family, he was going to take them with him. I believe he thought for some bizarre reason that he was protecting them.”

In at least one respect, however, the cases do fit the domestic violence profile.

“One of the factors in domestic violence is isolation, and shunning certainly comes into play with that,” said Margo Schaefer, community outreach director at WomenSpace in Eugene.

Religions with rigid gender roles have been statistically associated with a higher incidence of domestic violence, she added. “The church is protecting their community from behaviors they consider nefarious” she said of shunning in such settings. “But, on the flip side, that may put the person’s family members more at risk.”

For van Wormer, one of the most chilling revelations in the Longo case is that a neighbor in a unit directly below the family’s condo didn’t even know MaryJane and the children lived there.

“That says a lot about their isolation,” she said. “They couldn’t even make any noise.”

Karen McCowan can be reached at 338-2422 or kmccowan@guardnet.com.

March 22, 2008 Posted by Admin Staff | Christianity, Disfellowshipping, Jehovahs Witnesses | | 1 Comment

Misapplication of Disfellowshipping

“The Table of Demons”

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked. –Awake!, June 22, 2000

The Watchtower organization strongly discourages association with non-members.Frequently cited in support of this policy is 1 Cor 15:33, which in the Watchtower bible reads: “Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.” In reality, what this means for Watchtower members is no social contact with non-members; just the bare minimum interaction that is unavoidable in day-to-day life (at work, school, etc), and even this is tightly regulated. Non-Witness relatives are sometimes shown a bit more compassion, but in my own experience growing up as a Jehovah’s Witness, I rarely saw any of my non-Witness relatives for the sole reason that they were “worldly” (Watchtower term for a non-member).

Even more rigid is the policy toward individuals who have left the Watchtower religion. Former members, including those who have left of their own accord and those who have been “disfellowshipped” (excommunicated) for breaking one of the Society’s rules, are not even to be greeted on the street.The Watchtower shunning policy even applies to one’s own relatives who leave the organization, including immediate family members.

But even this inhumane treatment pales in comparison to the hatred that Watchtower leaders reserve for those who conscientiously leave the Watchtower organization over doctrinal or church policy issues. These ones are labelled “apostates” and are constantly vilified in Watchtower publications:

These apostates ‘have gone out from us because they were not of our sort.’ (1 John 2:18, 19) Hence, they no longer have fellowship with loyal anointed witnesses of Jehovah and their companions, and therefore these self-seeking heretics have no “sharing” with the Father and the Son, no matter how much they may boast of having intimacy with God and Christ. Instead, they are in spiritual darkness. (1 John 1:3, 6) Lovers of light and truth must take a firm stand against these promoters of false teaching. In no way do loyal witnesses of Jehovah want to be accomplices in the “wicked deeds” of such unfaithful persons by supporting their ungodly words and activities in any manner. –The Watchtower, April 1, 1983, page 24.

In just one short paragraph - five sentences, in fact - these former members are slandered as:

1. apostates
2. self-seeking
3. heretics
4. having no sharing with the Father and the Son
5. boasters
6. in spiritual darkness
7. against lovers of light and truth
8. promoters of false teaching
9. committing wicked deeds
10. unfaithful persons
11. having ungodly words and activities

Actually, this is quite tame, comparatively. Consider the following Watchtower propaganda for a more complete representation of the Jehovah’s Witness view of those who conscientiously reject Watchtower doctrine:

If we analyze these warnings given by Jesus and Paul, the following identifying features of typical apostates emerge: (1) Deviation from the truth (2) Twisted, empty speech (3) Efforts to subvert the faith of some and draw away disciples after themselves (4) Hypocrisy (’wolves in sheep’s covering’) (5) Recognizable by their fruits; they ‘advance to more and more ungodliness’ –The Watchtower, August 1, 1980, page 18.

Because apostates “originate with the world” and have its wicked spirit, “they speak what proceeds from the world and the world listens to them.” Since we have Jehovah’s spirit, we can detect the unspiritual nature of their “inspired expressions” and therefore we reject them. –The Watchtower, July 15, 1986, page 20.

Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah’s organization and actively try to hinder its work. … True Christians share Jehovah’s feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they “feel a loathing” toward those who have made themselves God’s enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. –The Watchtower, October 1, 1993, page 19.

But persecutors, apostates, and other disrespectful opposers will be compelled to ‘bow down’-acknowledging in chagrin that Jehovah’s Witnesses do indeed represent God’s organization. –The Watchtower, March 1, 1985, page 16.

Is it not true that those who have gone out from us over the years because “they were not of our sort,” and who try to induce others to follow the same life-imperiling course, have cut themselves off from the source of solid spiritual food and refreshing spiritual waters? (1 John 2:19) And these senseless ones, far from being generous and openhanded toward those of mankind who hunger and thirst after righteousness, do not see any urgent need for an organized preaching work in our time. They would allow each one to be guided by his own private reading and interpretation of the Bible… But the senseless opposers are not interested in the real welfare of those seeking the truth. –The Watchtower, May 15, 1984, page 18.

Thus the one who doubts to the point of becoming an apostate sets himself up as a judge. He thinks he knows better than his fellow Christians, better also than the “faithful and discreet slave,” through whom he has learned the best part, if not all that he knows about Jehovah God and his purposes. He develops a spirit of independence, and becomes “proud in heart . . . something detestable to Jehovah.” (Prov. 16:5) Some apostates even think they know better than God… –The Watchtower, August 1, 1980, page 19-20.

After having yielded to such works of the flesh as “enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects,” apostates often fall victim to other fleshly works such as “drunken bouts,” “loose conduct” and “fornication.” –The Watchtower, August 1, 1980, page 20.

The obligation to hate lawlessness also applies to all activity by apostates. Our attitude toward apostates should be that of David, who declared: “Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies. –The Watchtower, July 15, 1992, page 12.

May we never be like those modern-day apostates who, rather than give a public witness, prefer to slander their brothers and to fall back into the ways of the world-antitypical Egypt. –The Watchtower, December 15, 1986, page 12.

Our safety lies in avoiding apostate propaganda as though it were poison, which in fact it is. –The Watchtower, July 15, 1992, page 13.

Love ‘believes and hopes all things’ found in God’s Word and moves us to appreciate the spiritual food provided by the ‘faithful slave’ class, instead of listening to the slanderous statements of lying apostates. –The Watchtower, October 15, 1989, page 19.

Apostates often appeal to the ego, claiming that we have been deprived of our freedoms, including the freedom to interpret the Bible for ourselves. … True, such smooth talkers may look outwardly clean in a physical and moral way. But inside they are spiritually unclean, having given in to prideful, independent thinking. –The Watchtower, November 1, 1987, page 19-20.

Like gangrene, apostate reasoning is nothing but quick-spreading spiritual death. –The Watchtower, March 15, 1986, page 15.

Therefore, resolve in your heart that you will never even touch the poison that apostates want you to sip. –The Watchtower, March 15, 1986, page 20.

Apostates who hate former associates in Jehovah’s service no longer have such fellowship with God and Christ. –The Watchtower, July 15, 1986, page 10.

As loyal servants of Jehovah, why would we even want to peek at the propaganda put out by these rejecters of Jehovah’s table who now verbally beat those who are helping us take in “healthful words”? –The Watchtower, July 1, 1994, page 12.

From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. … They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. –The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, page 28-29.

What would you expect from the table of demons? And while the apostates may also present certain facts, these are usually taken out of context with the goal of drawing others away from the table of Jehovah. –The Watchtower, July 1, 1994, page 12.

Why are those who disagree with the teachings of the Watchtower Society treated so differently than other non-members (or ex-members)? It would seem ironic that an individual who, even by Watchtower admission, advocates reading the Bible above any other material and professes submission to God and to Jesus Christ as the head of the Christian congregation would become the chief enemy of the Watchtower Society, the supposed “true Christian congregation”.

Watchtower leaders unwittingly provide the answer to this question themselves. Notice the following quotation from another Watchtower publication:

This quote comes from the June 22, 2000 Awake! magazine, in an article on propaganda. In this same article, the Watchtower writers even provide a sample of this type of ad hominem attack:

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children … They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.

“They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” Sound familiar?

——-

Footnotes

1. The following quotations from Watchtower publications are representative of the Watchtower view of non-members (referred to as “worldly” persons):

One cannot walk with God while running in association with those of the wicked and sick society that approves of everything that God abhors. … Some in the congregation may be inclined to invite worldly acquaintances and unbelieving relatives who have no interest in the truth to social gatherings, thinking that this will encourage them to accept the truth. However, is this wise and in harmony with the Scriptures? We have been counseled to be cautious in our dealings with men of the nations, unbelievers, and ordinary persons. … Why should we have unnecessary social contact with people who still pursue worldly ways and who have not become worshipers of Jehovah? … They fail to appreciate that attendance at social gatherings with worldly, unprincipled people can weaken their faith and corrupt them. –Our Kingdom Ministry, June 1989, page 1-2.

We must also be on guard against extended association with worldly people. Perhaps it is a neighbor, a school friend, a workmate, or a business associate. We may reason, ‘He respects the Witnesses, he leads a clean life, and we do talk about the truth occasionally.’ Yet, the experience of others proves that in time we may even find ourselves preferring such worldly company to that of a spiritual brother or sister. –The Watchtower, February 15, 1994, page 24.

2. Jehovah’s Witnesses are required to shun persons who voluntarily leave the organization, as well as those who are excommunicated, even as far as not saying a greeting should they pass on the street:

…occasionally a Witness on his own initiative will decide to leave the [Watchtower organization]. … They then will adhere to the inspired injunction ‘not to receive such a one into their homes or say a greeting to him so as not to become sharers in his wicked works.’ –The Watchtower, July 1, 1984, page 31.

According to the Watchtower Society, “rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses” is “appropriately” considered tantamount to sinning:

Persons who make themselves ‘not of our sort’ by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing. –The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, page 23.

3. Even family members are not immune to Watchtower shunning:

…Korah, Dathan and Abiram rebelled. … What would the children and households of Korah, Dathan and Abiram do? Would they put loyalty to family ahead of loyalty to Jehovah and his congregation? Most of those closely related to the rebels put family before God. Jehovah executed these relatives along with the rebels. … Great care needs to be exercised that a person’s situation as a disfellowshiped sinner is neither overlooked nor minimized. As the sons of Korah well demonstrated, our chief loyalty must be to Jehovah and his theocratic arrangement. –The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, page 26-30.

It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum… Anyone who is feeling the sadness and pain that the disfellowshipped relative has thus caused may find comfort and be encouraged by the example set by some of Korah’s relatives. –The Watchtower, April 15, 1988, page 26.

(Notice also that it’s the person on the receiving end of the shunning that is blamed for the shunner’s “sadness and pain”. The person dealing out the inhumane treatment is taught to feel blameless.)

March 12, 2008 Posted by Admin Staff | Admin Comment, Christianity, Disfellowshipping, Jehovahs Witnesses | | No Comments

WT guidelines for disfellowshipping

Disfellowshiping & Disassociating

*** Kingdom Ministry August 2002 pp.3-4 Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped ***

Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped

1 The bond between family members can be very strong. This brings a test upon a Christian when a marriage mate, a child, a parent, or another close relative is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the congregation. (Matt. 10:37) How should loyal Christians treat such a relative? Does it make a difference if the person lives in your household? First, let us review what the Bible says on this subject, the principles of which apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who disassociate themselves.

2 How to Treat Expelled Ones: God’s Word commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. . . . Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) Jesus’ words recorded at Matthew 18:17 also bear on the matter: “Let [the expelled one] be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” Jesus’ hearers well knew that the Jews of that day had no fraternization with Gentiles and that they shunned tax collectors as outcasts. Jesus was thus instructing his followers not to associate with expelled ones.–See The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 18-20.

3 This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God’s Word states that we should ‘not even eat with such a man.’ (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.

4 What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah’s view of matters: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, says: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”

5 Indeed, it is just as page 31 of the same issue of The Watchtower states: “The fact is that when a Christian gives himself over to sin and has to be disfellowshiped, he forfeits much: his approved standing with God; . . . sweet fellowship with the brothers, including much of the association he had with Christian relatives.”

6 In the Immediate Household: Does this mean that Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member are to avoid talking to, eating with, and associating with that one as they go about their daily activities? The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: “If in a Christian’s household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities.” Thus, it would be left up to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities. And yet, they would not want to give brothers with whom they associate the impression that everything is the same as it was before the disfellowshipping occurred.

7 However, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 28, points out regarding the disfellowshipped or disassociated person: “Former spiritual ties have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his relatives, including those within his immediate family circle. . . . That will mean changes in the spiritual fellowship that may have existed in the home. For example, if the husband is disfellowshiped, his wife and children will not be comfortable with him conducting a family Bible study or leading in Bible reading and prayer. If he wants to say a prayer, such as at mealtime, he has a right to do so in his own home. But they can silently offer their own prayers to God. (Prov. 28:9; Ps. 119:145, 146) What if a disfellowshiped person in the home wants to be present when the family reads the Bible together or has a Bible study? The others might let him be present to listen if he will not try to teach them or share his religious ideas.”

8 If a minor child living in the home is disfellowshipped, Christian parents are still responsible for his upbringing. The Watchtower of November 15, 1988, page 20, states: “Just as they will continue to provide him with food, clothing, and shelter, they need to instruct and discipline him in line with God’s Word. (Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17) Loving parents may thus arrange to have a home Bible study with him, even if he is disfellowshipped. Maybe he will derive the most corrective benefit from their studying with him alone. Or they may decide that he can continue to share in the family study arrangement.”–See also The Watchtower of October 1, 2001, pages 16-17.

9 Relatives Not in the Household: “The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home,” states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.–See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.

10 The Watchtower addresses another situation that can arise: “What if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5: . . . What is done may depend on factors such as the parent’s true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household.”–The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.

11 As for a child, the same article continues: “Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshiped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring ‘leaven’ into the home?–Gal. 5:9.”

12 Benefits of Being Loyal to Jehovah: Cooperating with the Scriptural arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial. It preserves the cleanness of the congregation and distinguishes us as upholders of the Bible’s high moral standards. (1 Pet. 1:14-16) It protects us from corrupting influences. (Gal. 5:7-9) It also affords the wrongdoer an opportunity to benefit fully from the discipline received, which can help him to produce “peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”–Heb. 12:11.

13 After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immediately after the assembly, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. Shortly thereafter, his mother began attending meetings and was eventually reinstated. Also, her unbelieving husband began studying and in time was baptized.

14 Loyally upholding the disfellowshipping arrangement outlined in the Scriptures demonstrates our love for Jehovah and provides an answer to the one that is taunting Him. (Prov. 27:11) In turn, we can be assured of Jehovah’s blessing. King David wrote regarding Jehovah: “As for his statutes, I shall not turn aside from them. With someone loyal you will act in loyalty.”–2 Sam. 22:23, 26.

[Emphasis Added]

*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, March 18, 2002 ***

[ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]

Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions

[…]

Do you shun former members?

Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned. In compliance with the Scriptures, however, members can be expelled for serious unchristian conduct, such as stealing, drunkenness, or adultery, if they do not repent and cease such actions. Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties. Disfellowshipped members may continue to attend religious services, and if they wish, they may receive pastoral visits. They are always welcome to return to the faith.—1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

[Emphasis Added]

*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, July 20, 2002 ***

[ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]

Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions

[…]

Do you shun former members?

Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly directs: “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:13) What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family changes, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply the Bible’s counsel: “Quit mixing with them.” (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.

[Emphasis Added]

*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, August 28, 2003 ***

[ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]

Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions

[…]

Do you shun former members?

Those who become inactive in the congregation, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, special effort is made to reach out to them and rekindle their spiritual interest. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkeness, stealing or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly states: ‘Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.’ (1 Corinthians 5:13) Those who formally say they do not want to be part of the organization any more are also avoided. What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply the Bible’s counsel: “Quit mixing with them.” (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.

[Emphasis Added]

*** Watchtower April 1, 1920, pp.100, 101 ***

We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord’s channel. If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience.

[Emphasis Added]

*** Nov 15, 1952 Watchtower pp.703-704 Questions from Readers ***

Questions from Readers

• In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P.C., Ontario, Canada.

We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.

Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.

God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.

If children are of age and continue to associate with a disfellowshiped parent because of receiving material support from him or her, then they must consider how far their spiritual interests are being endangered by continuing under this unequal arrangement, and whether they can arrange to support themselves, living apart from the fallen-away parent. Their continuing to receive material support should not make them compromise so as to ignore the disfellowshiped state of the parent. If, because of acting according to the disfellowship order of the company of God’s people, they become threatened with a withdrawal of the parental support, then they must be willing to take such consequences.

Satan’s influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God’s organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.

The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person—no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: “If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah's sanctified nation].” (Matt. 18:17, NW) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.

The same rule would apply to those who are in the relation of parent and child or of child and parent. What natural obligation falls upon them according to man’s law and God’s law the faithful parent or the faithful child will comply with. But as for rendering more than that and having religious fellowship with such one in violation of the congregation’s disfellowship order—no, none of that for the faithful one! If the faithful suffers in some material or other way for the faithful adherence to theocratic law, then he must accept this as suffering for righteousness’ sake.

The purpose of observing the disfellowship order is to make the disfellowshiped one realize the error of his way and to shame him, if possible, so that he may be recovered, and also to safeguard your own salvation to life in the new world in vindication of God. (2 Thess. 3:14, 15; Titus 2: Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.

[Emphasis Added]

*** Watchtower 1981 Sept 15 p.20-26 Disfellowshiping—How to View It ***

Disfellowshiping—How to View It

“O Jehovah, . . . who will reside in your holy mountain? He who is walking faultlessly and practicing righteousness.”—Ps. 15:1, 2.

JEHOVAH is righteous and holy. Though he is merciful and understanding with imperfect humans, he expects those worshiping him to reflect his holiness by trying to uphold his righteous standards.—Ps. 103:8-14; Num. 15:40.

2 An Israelite who deliberately violated God’s commands, such as those against apostasy, adultery or murder, was to be cut off, put to death. (Num. 15:30,31; 35:31; Deut. 13:1-5; Lev. 20:10) This firmness in upholding God’s reasonable and just standards was good for all Israelites, for it helped to maintain the congregation’s purity. And it served to deter anyone from spreading corruption among the people who had God’s name on them.

3 In the first century C.E. the Jews under Roman rule did not have the authority to administer the death penalty. (John 18:28-31) But a Jew guilty of violating the Law could be expelled from the synagogue. An effect of this severe punishment was that other Jews would shun or avoid the expelled person. It is said that others would not even have commercial transactions with him beyond selling him the necessities of life.—John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2.

4 After the Christian congregation was formed, it replaced the Jewish nation in having God’s name upon it. (Matt. 21:43; Acts 15:14) Accordingly, Christians could rightly be expected to uphold Jehovah’s righteousness. The apostle Peter wrote: “In accord with the Holy One who called you, do you also become holy yourselves in all your conduct, because it is written: ‘You must be holy, because I am holy.’” (1 Pet. 1:14-16) Jehovah loves his people and wants to protect the purity of the Christian congregation. So he outlined a provision to reject or expel a person who persists in a course that dishonors God and endangers the congregation.

5 The apostle Paul advised: “As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned.” (Titus 3:10, 11) Yes, spiritual elders, such as Titus was, first try lovingly to help a wrongdoer. If he will not respond to their help and persists in a course of “sinning,” they have authority to convoke a committee of elders to “judge the members of [the] fellowship.” (1 Cor. 5:12, Today’s English Version) Love for God and for the purity of his people requires that those in the “fellowship,” the congregation, reject that man.

6 In the first century some of such wrongdoers arose. Hymenaeus and Alexander were of that sort, men who had “experienced shipwreck concerning their faith.” Paul said: “I have handed them over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim. 1:19, 20) Expelling those two men was a severe chastisement, or discipline, a punishment that might teach them not to blaspheme the holy and living God. (Compare Luke 23:16, where the basic Greek word often rendered “discipline” is used.) It was proper that these blasphemers be turned over to the authority of Satan, cast into the darkness of the world under Satan’s influence.—2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:17-19; 1 John 5:19; compare Acts 26:18.

HOW TO TREAT EXPELLED ONES

7 Some questions, however, may arise about how we should treat a former member who has been expelled. Thankfully, God has provided in his Word answers and directions that we can be sure are perfect, righteous and just.—Jer. 17:10; Deut. 32:4.

8 At one point a man in the Corinthian congregation was practicing immorality and evidently was unrepentant. Paul wrote that this man ’should be taken away from their midst,’ for he was like a little leaven that could ferment, or corrupt, a whole mass. (1 Cor. 5:1, 2, 6) But, was he, when once expelled, to be treated as if he were just an average person of the world whom the Christians might meet in their neighborhood or daily life? Note what Paul said.

9 “I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not meaning entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.” (1 Cor. 5:9, 10) In these words Paul realistically acknowledged that most persons whom we contact in our daily affairs have never known or followed God’s way. They may be fornicators, extortioners or idolaters, so they are not persons whom Christians choose as regular, close associates. Still, we live on this planet among mankind and may have to be around such persons and speak to them on the job, at school, in the neighborhood.

10 In the next verse Paul contrasts this situation with how Christians should conduct themselves toward one who had been a Christian “brother” but who was expelled from the congregation because of wrongdoing: “But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company ["not associate," TEV] with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.

11 The expelled person is not a mere man of the world who has not known God nor pursued a godly way of life. Rather, he has known the way of truth and righteousness, but he has left that way and unrepentantly pursued sin to the point of having to be expelled. So he is to be treated differently. Peter commented on how such former Christians differ from an average “man on the street.” The apostle said: “If, after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, the final conditions have become worse for them than the first. . . . The saying of the true proverb has happened to them: ‘The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.’”—2 Pet. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 6:11.

12 Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. This is consistent with Jesus’ advice that such a person be considered in the same way as “a man of the nations” was viewed by the Jews of that time. For some time after the apostles died, those professing Christianity evidently followed the Biblical procedure. But how many churches today comply with God’s clear directions in this regard?

THOSE WHO DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES

13 A Christian might grow spiritually weak, perhaps because of not studying God’s Word regularly, having personal problems or experiencing persecution. (1 Cor. 11:30; Rom. 14:1) Such a one might cease to attend Christian meetings. What is to be done? Recall that the apostles abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. Yet Christ had urged Peter, “When once you have returned, strengthen your brothers [who also abandoned Jesus].” (Luke 22:32) Hence, out of love Christian elders and others might visit and help the one who has grown weak and inactive. (1 Thess. 5:14; Rom. 15:1; Heb. 12:12, 13) It is another matter, though, when a person repudiates his being a Christian and disassociates himself.

14 One who has been a true Christian might renounce the way of the truth, stating that he no longer considers himself to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or wants to be known as one. When this rare event occurs, the person is renouncing his standing as a Christian, deliberately disassociating himself from the congregation. The apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.”—1 John 2:19.

15 Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

16 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.

COOPERATING WITH THE CONGREGATION

17 Though Christians enjoy spiritual fellowship when they discuss or study the Bible with their brothers or interested persons, they would not want to have such fellowship with an expelled sinner (or one who has renounced the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, disassociating himself). The expelled person has been ‘rejected,’ being “self-condemned” because of “sinning,” and those in the congregation both accept God’s judgment and uphold it. Disfellowshiping, however, implies more than ceasing to have spiritual fellowship.—Titus 3:10, 11.

18 Paul wrote: “Quit mixing in company . . . , not even eating with such a man.” (1 Cor. 5:11) A meal is a time of relaxation and socializing. Hence, the Bible here rules out social fellowship, too, such as joining an expelled person in a picnic or party, ball game, trip to the beach or theater, or sitting down to a meal with him. (The special problems involving a relative who has been disfellowshiped are considered in the following article.)

19 Sometimes a Christian might feel under considerable pressure to ignore this Bible advice. His own emotions may create the pressure, or it may be brought to bear on him by acquaintances. For instance, one brother was pressured to officiate at the marriage of two disfellowshiped persons. Could that service be rationalized as a mere kindness? One could feel that way. But why were his services wanted, rather than those of the town mayor or other state marrying agent? Was it not because of his standing as a minister of God and his ability to offer marriage counsel from God’s Word? To give in to such pressure would involve him in fellowshiping with the couple, persons who had been expelled from the congregation for their ungodly way.—1 Cor. 5:13.

20 Other problems arise in connection with business or employment. What if you were employed by a man who now was expelled by the congregation, or you employed a person to whom that happened? What then? If you were contractually or financially obliged to continue the business relationship for the present, you certainly would now have a different attitude toward the disfellowshiped individual. Discussion of business matters with him or contact on the job might be necessary, but spiritual discussions and social fellowship would be things of the past. In that way you could demonstrate your obedience to God and have a protective barrier for yourself. Also, this might impress on him how much his sin has cost him in various ways.—2 Cor. 6:14, 17.

SPEAK WITH A DISFELLOWSHIPED OR DISASSOCIATED PERSON?

21 Would upholding God’s righteousness and his disfellowshiping arrangement mean that a Christian should not speak at all with an expelled person, not even saying “Hello”? Some have wondered about that, in view of Jesus’ advice to love our enemies and not ‘greet our brothers only.’—Matt. 5:43-47.

22 Actually, in his wisdom God did not try to cover every possible situation. What we need is to get the sense of what Jehovah says about treatment of a disfellowshiped person, for then we can strive to uphold His view. Through the apostle John, God explains:

“Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 9-11.

23 The apostle who gave that wise warning was close to Jesus and knew well what Christ had said about greeting others. He also knew that the common greeting of that time was “Peace.” As distinct from some personal “enemy” or worldly man in authority who opposed Christians, a disfellowshiped or disassociated person who is trying to promote or justify his apostate thinking or is continuing in his ungodly conduct is certainly not one to whom to wish “Peace.” (1 Tim. 2:1, 2) And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?

24 ‘But what if he seems to be repentant and needs encouragement?’ someone might wonder. There is a provision for handling such situations. The overseers in the congregation serve as spiritual shepherds and protectors of the flock. (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2) If a disfellowshiped or disassociated person inquires, or gives evidence of wanting to come back into God’s favor, the elders can speak to him. They will kindly explain what he needs to do and might give him some appropriate admonition. They can deal with him on the basis of facts about his past sin and his attitude. Others in the congregation lack such information. So if someone felt that the disfellowshiped or disassociated person ‘is repentant,’ might that be a judgment based on impression rather than accurate information? If the overseers were convinced that the person was repentant and was producing the fruits of repentance, he would be reinstated into the congregation. After that occurs, the rest of the congregation can warmly welcome him at the meetings, display forgiveness, comfort him and confirm their love for him, as Paul urged the Corinthians to do with the man reinstated at Corinth.—2 Cor. 2:5-8.

NOT SHARING IN WICKED WORKS

25 All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: “He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 11.

26 Many of Christendom’s commentators take exception to 2 John 11. They claim that it is ‘unchristian counsel, contrary to the spirit of our Lord,’ or that it encourages intolerance. Yet such sentiments emanate from religious organizations that do not apply God’s command to “remove the wicked man from among yourselves,” that seldom if ever expel even notorious wrongdoers from their churches. (1 Cor. 5:13) Their “tolerance” is unscriptural, unchristian.—Matt. 7:21-23; 25:24-30; John 8:44.

27 But it is not wrong to be loyal to the righteous and just God of the Bible. He tells us that he will accept ‘in his holy mountain’ only those who walk faultlessly, practice righteousness and speak truth. (Ps. 15:1-5) If, though, a Christian were to throw in his lot with a wrongdoer who has been rejected by God and disfellowshiped, or has disassociated himself, that would be as much as saying ‘I do not want a place in God’s holy mountain either.’ If the elders saw him heading in that direction by regularly keeping company with a disfellowshiped person, they would lovingly and patiently try to help him to regain God’s view. (Matt. 18:18; Gal. 6:1) They would admonish him and, if necessary, ‘reprove him with severity.’ They want to help him remain ‘in God’s holy mountain.’ But if he will not cease to fellowship with the expelled person, he thus has made himself ‘a sharer (supporting or participating) in the wicked works’ and must be removed from the congregation, expelled.—Titus 1:13; Jude 22, 23; compare Numbers 16:26.

LOYAL TO GOD’S VIEW

28 Loyalty to Jehovah God and his provisions is a source of happiness, for all his ways are righteous, just and good. This is true, too, concerning his provision to disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers. As we cooperate with that arrangement, we can trust in David’s words: “Take knowledge that Jehovah will certainly distinguish his loyal one.” (Ps. 4:3) Yes, God sets apart, honors and guides those who are loyal to him and his ways. Among the many blessings we receive from such loyalty is the joy of being among those whom God approves and accepts ‘in his holy mountain.’—Ps. 84:10, 11.

DO YOU RECALL THESE POINTS?

When Jews were expelled from the synagogue, how were they treated?

Paul showed what difference in treating

(1) immoral persons in the world?

(2) immoral persons disfellowshiped from the congregation?

How should Christians view a person who disassociates himself from the congregation?

“Disfellowshiping” implies the terminating of what kinds of fellowship?

Why do Christians not greet or speak with disfellowshiped persons?

With regard to disfellowshiping, what do we need to do to remain ‘in God’s holy mountain’?

[Footnotes]

“Henceforth he was like one dead. He was not allowed to study with others, no [social] intercourse was to be held with him, he was not even to be shown the road. He might, indeed, buy the necessaries of life, but it was forbidden to eat or drink with such an one.”—The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by A. Edersheim, Vol. II, p. 184.

In line with this Bible teaching, Adam Clarke highlights the difference, stating: “Have no communion with [an expelled sinner] in things sacred or civil. You may transact your worldly concerns with a person that knows not God, and makes no profession of Christianity, whatever his moral character may be; but, ye must not even thus far acknowledge a man professing Christianity, who is scandalous in his conduct. Let him have this extra mark of your abhorrence of all sin.”

Ecclesiastical historian Joseph Bingham writes concerning the early centuries: “The discipline of the church consisted in a power to deprive men of all the benefits and privileges of baptism, by turning them out of the society and communion of the church, . . . and every one shunned and avoided them in common conversation, partly to establish the church’s censures and proceedings against them, and partly to make them ashamed, and partly to secure themselves from the danger of contagion.” ” . . . no one was to receive excommunicated persons into their houses, nor eat at the same table with them; they were not to converse with them familiarly, whilst living; nor perform the funeral obsequies for them, when dead, . . . These directions were drawn up upon the model of those rules of the apostles, which forbade Christians to give any countenance to notorious offenders.”—The Antiquities of the Christian Church, pp. 880, 891.

Our issue of September 1, 1981, discussed 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15, where the Bible says that it might be necessary to ‘mark’ a Christian who persists in disorderly conduct. He is still a brother and to be admonished as such, but other Christians are to “stop associating with him.” If they should avoid his company on a social basis, much clearer separation should exist in the cases of disfellowshiped or disassociated wrongdoers.

For a discussion of repentance, see The Watchtower of September 1, 1981.

[Study Questions]

1, 2. How do we know that God expects his worshipers to uphold his standards?

3. What was the situation of a Jew expelled from the synagogue?

4, 5. How was the Christian congregation to deal with an unrepentant sinner?

6. Why was it right and proper to expel unrepentant sinners?

7, 8. How can we determine what our conduct should be toward an expelled one?

9. What was Paul’s counsel about dealing with unrighteous persons in general?

10, 11. Why are Christians to act differently toward a sinner who has been expelled?

12. (a) Why is “disfellowshiping” an appropriate term? (b) What does history show as to how those professing Christianity dealt with sinners in early times?

13. What should be done in the case of a person who becomes weak and inactive?

14. How might a person disassociate himself?

15, 16. (a) How else might a person become disassociated? (b) How should Christians view and deal with disassociated persons?

17, 18. What is involved in our cooperating with the congregation as to disfellowshiping?

19. Why may it sometimes seem difficult to uphold a disfellowshiping, but why is it important that we do?

20. What should be our reaction if a business associate is disfellowshiped?

21, 22. The Scriptures provide what advice about speaking with a disfellowshiped person?

23, 24. Why is it wise to avoid speaking to expelled individuals?

25, 26. What does God counsel about becoming a “sharer” with a disfellowshiped person?

27. How might a Christian become such a “sharer,” and with what result?

28. How can we manifest our loyalty to Jehovah’s view?

[Pictures on page 22]

“Not even eating with” a disfellowshiped person

[Emphasis Added]

*** Watchtower Apr 1, 1986 p.30-31 Questions From Readers ***

Questions From Readers

• Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?

Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. Even some clergymen disagree with basic teachings of their church, yet they remain in good standing. In nearly all the denominations of Christendom, there are modernists and fundamentalists who greatly disagree with one another as to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29) Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.

But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism. Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to “watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.” Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.—Galatians 1:8, 9.

Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (New International Version) At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be “earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons.”

Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one’s independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity-oneness in teaching and activity-could be and would be possible.—Ephesians 4:11-13.

Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?

That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:2 That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15-12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”-John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.

Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: “Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God’s Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed “antichrist.” John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 7, 10, 11.

Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.) Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point, qualified ministers will lovingly assist him. This accords with the counsel: “Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire.” (Jude 22, 23) Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic, but it does highly value and work toward the unity encouraged in God’s Word.

[Emphasis Added]

*** Watchtower 1988 April 15 pp.26-31 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***

[Also available at Watchtower official website]

Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit

“No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”—HEBREWS 12:11.

THINK back to your childhood days. Can you recall your parents disciplining you? Most of us can. The apostle Paul used that as an illustration when commenting on discipline from God, as we read at Hebrews 12:9-11.

2 God’s fatherly discipline, which can affect our spiritual lives, can take many forms. One is his arrangement to exclude from the Christian congregation a person who no longer wants to live by God’s standards, or who refuses to do so. A person who is thus strongly chastised or disciplined may repent and turn around. In the process, the congregation of loyal ones are also disciplined in that they learn the importance of conforming to God’s high standards.—1 Timothy 1:20.

3 ‘But,’ someone may ask, ‘is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?’ Such a view surfaced in a recent court case involving a woman who was raised by parents who were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Her parents had been disfellowshipped. She was not, but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation. Accordingly, the congregation was simply informed that she was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She moved away, but years later she returned and found that local Witnesses would not converse with her. So she took the matter to court. What was the outcome, and how might this affect you? In order to understand the matter properly, let us see what the Bible says about the related subject of disfellowshipping.

Why This Firm Stand?

4 Most true Christians loyally support God and his righteous laws. (1 Thessalonians 1:2-7; Hebrews 6:10) Occasionally, though, a person deviates from the path of truth. For example, despite help from Christian elders, he may unrepentantly violate God’s laws. Or he may reject the faith by teaching false doctrine or by disassociating himself from the congregation. Then what should be done? Such things occurred even while the apostles were alive; hence, let us see what they wrote about this.

5 When a man in Corinth was unrepentantly immoral, Paul told the congregation: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) The same was to occur with apostates, such as Hymenaeus: “As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning.” (Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20) Such shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort.”—1 John 2:18, 19.

6 Hopefully, such a one will repent so that he can be accepted back. (Acts 3:19) But meanwhile, may Christians have limited fellowship with him, or is strict avoidance necessary? If so, why?

Cut Off Thoroughly?

7 Christians do not hold themselves aloof from people. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are ‘fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.’ Paul wrote that we cannot avoid them completely, ‘otherwise we would have to get out of the world.’ He directed that it was to be different, though, with “a brother” who lived like that: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that [has returned to such ways], not even eating with such a man.”—1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17.

8 In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khai'ro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 9-11.

9 Why is such a firm stand appropriate even today? Well, reflect on the severe cutting off mandated in God’s Law to Israel. In various serious matters, willful violators were executed. (Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 15:30, 31) When that happened, others, even relatives, could no longer speak with the dead lawbreaker. (Leviticus 19:1-4; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 17:1-7) Though loyal Israelites back then were normal humans with emotions like ours, they knew that God is just and loving and that his Law protected their moral and spiritual cleanness. So they could accept that his arrangement to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing.—Job 34:10-12.

10 We can be just as sure that God’s arrangement that Christians refuse to fellowship with someone who has been expelled for unrepentant sin is a wise protection for us. “Clear away the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are free from ferment.” (1 Corinthians 5:7) By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views.—Hebrews 12:15, 16.

What About Relatives?

11 God certainly realizes that carrying out his righteous laws about cutting off wrongdoers often involves and affects relatives. As mentioned above, when an Israelite wrongdoer was executed, no more family association was possible. In fact, if a son was a drunkard and a glutton, his parents were to bring him before the judges, and if he was unrepentant, the parents were to share in the just executing of him, ‘to clear away what is bad from the midst of Israel.’ (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) You can appreciate that this would not have been easy for them. Imagine, too, how the wrongdoer’s brothers, sisters, or grandparents felt. Yet, their putting loyalty to their righteous God before family affection could be lifesaving for them.

12 Recall the case of Korah, a leader in rebellion against God’s leadership through Moses. In his perfect justice, Jehovah saw that Korah had to die. But all loyal ones were advised: “Turn aside, please, from before the tents of these wicked men and do not touch anything that belongs to them, that you may not be swept away in all their sin.” Relatives who would not accept God’s warning died with the rebels. But some of Korah’s relatives wisely chose to be loyal to Jehovah, which saved their lives and led to future blessings.—Numbers 16:16-33; 26:9-11; 2 Chronicles 20:19.

13 Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. Respect for God’s judgments and the congregation’s action will move the wife and children to recognize that by his course, he altered the spiritual bond that existed between them. Yet, since his being disfellowshipped does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue.

14 The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man.”—1 Corinthians 5:11.

15 Understandably, this may be difficult because of emotions and family ties, such as grandparents’ love for their grandchildren. Yet, this is a test of loyalty to God, as stated by the sister quoted on page 26. Anyone who is feeling the sadness and pain that the disfellowshipped relative has thus caused may find comfort and be encouraged by the example set by some of Korah’s relatives.—Psalm 84:10-12.

The Court Decision

16 You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman who was upset because former acquaintances would not converse with her after she chose to reject the faith, disassociating herself from the congregation.

17 Before the case went to trial, a federal district court summarily granted judgment against her. That judgment was based on the concept that courts do not get involved in church disciplinary matters. She then appealed. The unanimous judgment of the federal court of appeals was based on broader grounds of First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) rights: “Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah’s Witness, we find that the ‘free exercise’ provision of the United States Constitution . . . precludes [her] from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning. Accordingly, we affirm” the earlier judgment of the district court.

18 The court opinion continued: “Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah’s Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs . . . Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church. Churches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members. We agree with [former U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Jackson’s view that ‘[r]eligious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free-as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.’ . . . The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice.”

19 The court of appeals acknowledged that even if the woman felt distress because former acquaintances chose not to converse with her, “permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion . . . The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by [her] as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.” This decision has, in a sense, received even more weight since it was handed down. How so? The woman later petitioned the highest court in the land to hear the case and possibly overturn the decision against her. But in November 1987, the United States Supreme Court refused to do so.

20 Hence, this important case determined that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person cannot recover damages from Jehovah’s Witnesses in a court of law for being shunned. Since the congregation was responding to the perfect directions that all of us can read in God’s Word and applying it, the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions.

Discipline—Many Benefit

21 Some outsiders, upon hearing about disfellowshipping, are inclined to sympathize with a wrongdoer who can no longer converse with members of the Christian congregation. But is not such sympathy misplaced? Consider the potential benefit that the wrongdoer and others may receive.

22 For example, on page 26 we noted Lynette’s comment about her choice ‘to cut herself off completely from all association’ with her disfellowshipped sister Margaret. She and her Christian relatives ‘believed that Jehovah’s way is best.’ And it is!

23 Lynette’s sister later told her: ‘If you had viewed the disfellowshipping lightly, I know that I would not have taken steps toward reinstatement as soon as I did. Being totally cut off from loved ones and from close contact with the congregation created a strong desire to repent. I realized just how wrong my course was and how serious it was to turn my back on Jehovah.’

24 In another case, Laurie’s parents were disfellowshipped. Yet she says: ‘My association with them never stopped but increased. As time went on, I became more and more inactive. I got to the point of not even attending meetings.’ Then she read material in The Watchtower of September 1 and 15, 1981, that stressed the counsel of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 John 9-11. “It was as if a light bulb were turned on in me,” she writes. ‘I knew I would have to make some changes. I now better understand the meaning of Matthew 10:34-36. My decision was not an easy one for my family to swallow, for my son, five, is the only boy, and they love him dearly.’ It is hoped that losing such association will touch the parents’ hearts, as it did Margaret’s. Still, the discipline involved helped Laurie: ‘I am back out in the field ministry. My marriage and family are stronger because of my change, and so am I.’

25 Or consider the feelings of one who was disfellowshipped and later reinstated. Sandi wrote: ‘I would like to thank you for the very helpful and instructive articles [mentioned above] on reproof and disfellowshipping. I am happy that Jehovah loves his people enough to see that his organization is kept clean. What may seem harsh to outsiders is both necessary and really a loving thing to do. I am grateful that our heavenly Father is a loving and forgiving God.’

26 So our God who requires that an unrepentant wrongdoer be expelled from the congregation also lovingly shows that a sinner can be reinstated in the congregation if he repents and turns around. (A disassociated person can similarly request to become part of the congregation again.) Thereafter he can be comforted by Christians who will confirm their love for him. (2 Corinthians 2:5-11; 7:8-13) Truly, it is just as Paul wrote: “No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”—Hebrews 12:11.

[Footnotes]

John here used khai’ro, which was a greeting like “good day” or “hello.” (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9) He did not us

End of the Loving Time

Some of it is true

Why Can’t Ex Jehovah’s Witnesses Just Move On?

lifted from http://exjw.wordpress.com/

Just Move On Already!

Is Blood Really Thicker Than Water?

From the Horse’s Mouth

Life Without Family - An Analogy

What It Really Feels Like

Disfellowshipping and consequences

Cast out: Religious shunning provides an unusual background in the Longo and Bryant slayings

The Register-Guard/March 2, 2003 By Karen McCowan

Shunning raised early

Striking Similarities

Divided Loyalties

Atypical Domestic Violence

Misapplication of Disfellowshipping

WT guidelines for disfellowshipping

Disfellowshiping & Disassociating

*** Kingdom Ministry August 2002 pp.3-4 Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped ***

Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped

*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, March 18, 2002 ***

Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions

Do you shun former members?

*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, July 20, 2002 ***

Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions

Do you shun former members?

*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, August 28, 2003 ***

Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions

Do you shun former members?

*** Watchtower April 1, 1920, pp.100, 101 ***

*** Nov 15, 1952 Watchtower pp.703-704 Questions from Readers ***

Questions from Readers

*** Watchtower 1981 Sept 15 p.20-26 Disfellowshiping—How to View It ***

Disfellowshiping—How to View It

HOW TO TREAT EXPELLED ONES

THOSE WHO DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES

COOPERATING WITH THE CONGREGATION

SPEAK WITH A DISFELLOWSHIPED OR DISASSOCIATED PERSON?

NOT SHARING IN WICKED WORKS

LOYAL TO GOD’S VIEW

DO YOU RECALL THESE POINTS?

[Footnotes]

[Study Questions]

[Pictures on page 22]

*** Watchtower Apr 1, 1986 p.30-31 Questions From Readers ***

Questions From Readers

*** Watchtower 1988 April 15 pp.26-31 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***

Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit

Why This Firm Stand?

Cut Off Thoroughly?

What About Relatives?

The Court Decision

Discipline—Many Benefit

[Footnotes]

The Register-Guard/March 2, 2003
By Karen McCowan

* Kingdom Ministry August 2002 pp.3-4 Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped *

* Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, March 18, 2002 *

* Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, July 20, 2002 *

* Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, August 28, 2003 *

* Watchtower April 1, 1920, pp.100, 101 *

* Nov 15, 1952 Watchtower pp.703-704 Questions from Readers *

* Watchtower 1981 Sept 15 p.20-26 Disfellowshiping—How to View It *

* Watchtower Apr 1, 1986 p.30-31 Questions From Readers *

* Watchtower 1988 April 15 pp.26-31 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit *