In the previous post I ended with the question: Can a person leave the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, choosing to worship God willingly, from the heart apart from the organization and not face repercussions?
Let’s analyze the rest of his testimony and see if Geoffrey Jackson can answer that for us:
The following exchange is centered around chapter 14 of the book “Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will” pages 142,143 pars. 30-33. Before reading the transcript or watching the video segment of the discussion it might be beneficial to read what is contained in that section.
“DISASSOCIATION
The term “disassociation” applies to the action taken by a person who is a baptized member of the congregation but deliberately repudiates his Christian standing by stating that he no longer wants to be recognized as, or known as, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or he might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to Bible teachings and therefore is under judgment by Jehovah God.—Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21.
Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, 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.
When a person is disassociated, his situation before Jehovah is far different from that of an inactive Christian, one who no longer shares in the field ministry. A person may have become inactive because he failed to study God’s Word regularly. Or perhaps he experienced personal problems or persecution and lost his zeal for serving Jehovah. The elders as well as others in the congregation will continue to render appropriate spiritual assistance to an inactive Christian.—Rom. 15:1; 1 Thess. 5:14; Heb. 12:12.
In contrast, if a person who is a Christian chooses to disassociate himself, a brief announcement is made to inform the congregation, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The coordinator of the body of elders should approve this announcement.” (Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will pgs. 142,143)
So now, pay attention as Angus Stewart tries to determine if a person can leave the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses without taking the formal step of disassociation to avoid being treated the same as a disfellowshipped person, namely, being shunned by all of your friends and family members that remain within the organization.
Stewart: …but perhaps I can take you to tab 109, page 155. This is the manual Organised to Do
Jehovah’s Will?
Jackson: Is this the section on disassociation?
Stewart: Yes, that’s right. This is a manual which is issued to all baptised Jehovah’s Witnesses; is that right?
Jackson: That is correct, or ‐ no, let me clarify. Sorry, let me be precise: those who are approved to go from door to door. So someone who is preparing for baptism and is an unbaptised publisher would be allowed to have a copy.
Stewart: So all baptised Jehovah’s Witnesses would be guided by this, but, in addition, you say some who are not yet baptised may also have a copy of this?
Jackson: That is correct.
Stewart:. Thank you. And this is the current edition, 2005.There isn’t a more recent edition, is there?
Jackson: No, there isn’t one available.
Stewart: So if we have a look, in the first sentence, it says:
“The term disassociation applies to the action taken by a person who, although a baptised member of the congregation, deliberately repudiates his Christian standing, rejecting the congregation by his actions or by stating that he no longer wants to be recognised as or known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” So is it the case, then, that someone who no longer wants to be recognised as or known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses must then disassociate?
Jackson: No, it doesn’t say they must do anything. If you read on, you will see there is a process. This gives the person the right to officially have an announcement made that they are no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But, as I already said, if they decide they don’t want to exercise that right, they don’t automatically come under this provision.
Stewart: But then people who don’t exercise that right are then ‐ in other words, they are, as you described, inactive ‐ still subject to the rules and discipline of the organisation, aren’t they?
Jackson: I would have to check on that, because personally that’s not my field. But my understanding is, if a person has made it known by their actions in the community over a period of years that they are not witnesses, we would only hold any reports in abeyance until they decided they wanted to return.
Stewart: Mr Jackson, I have to say that my understanding is if someone in that position is caught transgressing one of the rules, they would still be subject to the disciplinary proceedings, including possibly disfellowshipping; is that not right?
Jackson: That is a possibility, but in all fairness to your question, I think there are circumstances, but I couldn’t make a definitive comment on that.
Stewart: So, for example, if they had become inactive or sought to fade without formally disassociating, and the elders came to visit and found them celebrating Christmas or a birthday, they would be found to be in transgression of the rules, would they not?
Jackson: it is not my field, that goes into policy with regard to those type of things, but from my personal experience, that’s not the case.
Stewart: Mr Jackson, you say it’s not your field, but you are a member of the Governing Body which is responsible, as you have said, for the whole field, and you have been a member for 10 years, and all the committees are responsible to and accountable to the Governing Body.
Jackson: That is correct.
Stewart: So it is your field, isn’t it?
Jackson: Only as far as approving the basic scriptural principles. So is there a scriptural principle that you have in mind you want to ask me about, or are you talking about policies and implementation of policies? There is a difference there.
Stewart: Yes. And the policies are all subject to the scriptural principles, aren’t they?
Jackson: Yes, and if you have a question on the scriptural principle, I’m very happy to try and explain it.
Stewart: And, for that reason, the policies have to be approved by the Governing Body to ensure that they are in keeping with scriptural principles?
Jackson: That’s correct. But the fact that the policies at times need to be changed shows that there is leeway there.
Stewart: And if it is not the case, as you seem to suggest might be a possibility, although you say you don’t know, that someone who has not actively disassociated but merely sought to fade or become inactive is not governed by the rules, then where is the line drawn between those who are subject to the rules and those who aren’t?
Jackson: That’s a good question, and that’s where judgment comes in. By “judgment”, I mean using a person’s nous as to whether someone is still perceived as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the community.
Stewart: Isn’t that the point, that if someone is perceived as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the community, that’s because they have not disassociated or been disfellowshipped?
Jackson: Well, it has to do with what the person is telling other persons.
Stewart: Well, there’s no middle road, is there? I mean, you are either a member and subject to the organisation or you are not ‐ isn’t that the case?
Jackson: Yes, but I thought you were asking me about disassociation.
Stewart: Well, I am, indeed. So if someone hasn’t disassociated but has sought merely to become inactive or to fade, they are then still subject to the organisation’s discipline and rules?
Jackson: If they acknowledge being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Stewart: And if they do the contrary ‐ which is to say they are not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses ‐ the effect of that is disassociation?
Jackson: That’s if they decide to go down that course.
Stewart: And if they don’t actively disassociate, then they will be disfellowshipped as apostate?
Jackson: No, an apostate is someone who actively goes against what the Bible teaches.
Stewart: Well, if the elders come and knock on the door to a member who has been inactive and sought to fade away and says, “Well, are you still a Jehovah’s Witness or not?”, and the person says, “Well, no, I don’t want to be a Jehovah’s Witness”, the consequence of that will be either disfellowshipping or disassociation, won’t it?
Jackson: No, I don’t agree with that, not from what I have seen. Can I just say, this hypothetical situation, which is probably one that could happen ‐ two elders call at the door of someone, they are not going to come out and say, “Hello, I’m celebrating Christmas”. It presupposes that Jehovah’s Witnesses have some sort of spy network to monitor these people, which we don’t. But if that person says, “Look, I was baptised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I’m no longer active”, no doubt the elders will say, “Well, we would encourage you to return. Is there anything we can do to help you?” Now, in that process of them returning, if they feel prompted to say that they have been living a lifestyle that is contrary to what Jehovah’s Witnesses would live, then certainly we would handle that.
Stewart: Let’s take that hypothesis. Say they visit this household. Mr Jackson, can you hear me?
Jackson: I can, yes. Sorry, you started ‐ I didn’t hear a question.
Stewart: the two elders visiting the household of someone who has been inactive for some time, and seek to explore whether that person would come back to the active fold and encourage them to do so, in the process of which, in visiting that household, they find that that person is, in the eyes of a Jehovah’s Witness, living in sin. That person would then be subject to the discipline of the organisation, wouldn’t they?
Jackson: In a case such as that, yes.
Stewart: And the only way to avoid that would be to disassociate?
Jackson: If they didn’t want to go through the process. But might I mention in your hypothetical situation, the person has indicated that they want to come back, and many, many people in that situation do want to come back.
Stewart: No, Mr Jackson, my hypothetical had nothing to do with anyone wanting to come back. My hypothetical was premised on the basis that someone wants to leave or not be involved, and I’m exploring the possibility which you put out there of them being able to just become inactive and not actually end up outside the organisation or not end up disassociating. Do you understand?
Jackson: I do, sorry. I had misunderstood the fact that you said that they had indicated they wanted to come back. I’m sorry.
Stewart: So the point we’ve got to, then, is that, as I understand it, a person who has become inactive and wishes merely to remain inactive is still subject to the organisation’s rules and discipline ‐ not so?
Jackson: If they want to come back. But we don’t ‐ we don’t run a police state where we go and try and force people to follow our beliefs.
Stewart: Leaving that to one side, the point is, for example, if the elders visited and found the person to be living in sin in the eyes of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, then the elders would, following the process and procedures, discipline that person under the rules of the organisation ‐ not so?
Jackson: Yes, like, in a situation where it was found that someone who claimed to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses was living in sin, then the elders would try to ascertain, well, what needs to be done? We obviously want to help the person, so the first step would be to ascertain, do they want to come back, are they willing to change what they are doing? And if, ultimately, the person is willing to talk to us, then, yes, that would be involved with the judicial process.
Stewart: But if they are not, then either they must disassociate or they will be disfellowshipped?
Jackson: That would be in that particular case, but I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn’t be.
Stewart: It’s right, isn’t it, that in the case of both disassociation and disfellowshipping, the remaining members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot associate with the disassociated or disfellowshipped person?
Jackson: Yes, that’s according to the Bible principles, which I’m sure you have already read.
Stewart: And that includes even family members not living in the same household?
Jackson: That is correct.
Stewart: So someone who wants to leave the organisation must choose, you accept, between freedom from the organisation on the one hand and friends, family and social network on the other?
Jackson: I thought I made it quite clear that I don’t agree with that supposition. Are you talking about a gross sin that has been committed or someone who just wants to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses? Let me clarify it. If someone no longer wants to be an active Jehovah’s Witness and they are not in the community viewed as a Jehovah’s Witness, we do not have a so‐called spiritual police force to go and handle that.
Stewart: Mr Jackson, the reality of the situation is that a person who has been baptised a Jehovah’s Witness is thereafter either in the organisation or out of it; is that not right?
Jackson: I think perhaps you have got your facts a little wrong there.
Stewart:. I don’t think that’s correct, because you have accepted already, Mr Jackson, that a person in the situation you have postulated of merely becoming inactive is still subject to the rules of the organisation?
Jackson: The proposition you put forward, that they meet someone who is celebrating Christmas ‐ you know, this person is not associating with other Jehovah’s Witnesses, not actively trying to change other people, and so on ‐ a person such as that is not going to be handled judicially, as far as I understand. So, sorry, I have to disagree with you, but I hope you can see ‐‐
Stewart: Mr Jackson, you are agreeing on the example of what they do wrong. That’s not my point. My point is they may do nothing wrong, but they are still subject to the rules of the organisation in the event that at some point they do do something wrong?
Jackson: I will agree with that. But I don’t agree with the sweeping statement that they only have the two choices. That was the point I was disagreeing with.
Stewart: Well, it’s right, then, isn’t it, because if they don’t want to be subject to the discipline and rules of the organisation, then they have to leave by actively dissociating; isn’t that the truth?
Jackson: That’s if they definitely don’t want to be, yes.
Stewart: Yes.
Jackson: But there are some that do not want to make that active move.
Stewart: Well, the result, then, is that they are faced with the choice between freedom from the organisation on the one hand and having to lose their family and friends and social network on the other?
Jackson: That’s how you would like to put it, Mr Stewart, but I thought I’m trying to say that there are those, some of whom I have heard of, that just fade away and they are not actively Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Stewart: And, Mr Jackson, you have put it that they have a choice to leave or not to leave. For someone who wants to leave, perhaps because they have suffered abuse by someone in the organisation and don’t feel that it has been treated properly or adequately, it’s a very difficult choice, isn’t it, because they must choose ‐‐
Jackson: I agree, yes.
Stewart: And it can be a very cruel choice for them ‐ not so?
Jackson: I agree, it’s a difficult choice.
Stewart: And it can be personally devastating, because they can lose their whole social network and their families?
Jackson: That can be the case, yes.
Stewart: Would you accept, then, that putting people to that choice, through this system of disassociating from them or shunning, as it is sometimes referred to, is contrary to the Jehovah’s Witness belief in freedom of religious choice?
Jackson: No, I don’t accept that. I think you are jumping to a conclusion there, but I understand that you have that opinion.
Stewart: Well, on what basis do you not accept that?
Jackson: Because right throughout the arrangement with Jehovah’s Witnesses, people have to make choices based on their own free will. For example, to be baptised ‐ if someone walks up to us and says, “I want to get baptised”, we’re not going to allow them to be baptised. They have to first of all understand the arrangement of Christian living. Usually, it takes one or two years for them to go through both the publications that we have, so that they personally can make that commitment. So that is the choice that they make. Now, we are not forcing them in any way to remain in our organisation. But a point to remember is that the ultimate standard that we believe in is the Bible, and we feel it’s good for people to live by the Bible. The fact that many who have been disfellowshipped return of their own free will is an indication that they, likewise, still believe that it is a good lifestyle.
Stewart: Mr Jackson, you were baptised at age 13, am I right?
Jackson: I certainly was, yes.
Stewart: And in fact many Jehovah’s Witnesses are baptised at an age even younger than that?
Jackson: There have been some I have met that have been baptised younger.
Stewart: Do you consider that at that age someone is old enough and mature enough to make a decision affecting the rest of their lives?
Jackson: Yes, I do in some cases. Obviously there are some children that wouldn’t be able to make that decision, and perhaps some question whether I could make that decision at 13 years of age, but I work with people that have been baptised when they were 11 and they have stuck by that determination their whole life.
Stewart: That may be because they can’t leave the organisation without leaving behind everyone whom they know.
Jackson: Anything is possible.
Stewart: You see, let’s take someone who is baptised at a young age and then, as a young adult, decides that actually their beliefs lie elsewhere and they want to choose some other system of belief. They then are still going to be faced with the stark choice that we have identified, aren’t they?
Jackson: That’s true.
Stewart: And it’s on that basis, I suggest to you, that that policy and practice of the organisation is in conflict with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief, as you have said it is, in freedom of religious choice?
Jackson: No, we don’t see it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Stewart: I suggest also that it is in conflict with the idea of a loving and a compassionate God.
Jackson: Certainly that wouldn’t be in harmony with what the Bible says, because at times Jehovah disciplined his people by having them go into exile and come back. So Jehovah is someone who believes in the ultimate overall benefit of good for persons, and sometimes that includes some form of discipline.
Stewart: Do you accept that putting people to that choice makes your organisation in many respects a captive organisation?
Jackson: I do not accept that at all.
After this exchange, Jackson was asked for the scriptural basis for this position. He responded by turning in his Bible to 1 Corinthians chapter 5. But, rather than dealing with a person that wants to choose some other system of belief, that chapter is about a man involved in gross immorality while desiring to remain in the congregation. The apostle Paul’s counsel was for them to remove the wicked man from among themselves.
What scriptural support, however, is there for shunning a person indefinitely for simply wanting to change his/her religion?
Members of the organization are strongly encouraged to
adhere closely to all of the teachings unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Openly
disagreeing is considered apostasy and could lead to disfellowshipping. Since
association with non-witnesses is discouraged, the consequences of
disfellowshipping and shunning could result in the loss of one’s entire social
framework.[1] Not to mention the stigma attached
from being viewed as an antichrist. (2 John 9-11)
In addition, any witness that regularly associates with a disfellowshipped person could himself risk being disfellowshipped, being viewed as “a sharer in his wicked works”. As a result there exist many witnesses that remain in the organization not because of love for God but out of fear of losing their social connections. Yet it is impossible for Jackson to see that this situation makes the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, for these persons, very much a captive organization.
For a view of the position of other Christian groups on this topic I encourage you to read the article Responding Properly to People Who Leave Our Church.
[1] Interestingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not shun non-believers.