…“Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:13)
Perhaps second only to the refusal of blood transfusions, the most controversial practice of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that of disfellowshipping with its associated shunning of wrongdoers. Presently, all in the disfellowshipped state, whether repentant or not, as well as those voluntarily disassociating themselves are shunned. Not even so much as a hello is extended to them. Additionally, inactive members that have become involved in wrongdoing have experienced similar treatment. On Friday’s session of the 2016 Regional Convention a symposium entitled: “Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments” was given. In the second part entitled: “Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers” the following point was made:
“Loyal Christians would not associate with “anyone called a brother” who is practicing serious sin. This is true even if no congregation action has been taken, as may be the case with an inactive one.[1]
This can be a real trial when a family member is involved. We must not allow strong family ties to lead us to compromise loyalty to Jehovah and his organization.”[2]
Included with this talk was a video of a mother that refused to answer a phone call from her disfellowshipped daughter.
That this position is also taken for individuals that disagree with the doctrinal interpretations or the authority structure of the organization can be seen in a video that was presented as part of the November 2016 JW Broadcast.
The fact that the account of Korah and the loyalty displayed by his sons was displayed, shows that the point being made was witnesses need to shun family members that reject the authority of the governing body.
On their official website, the question is raised “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Former Members of Their Religion?” It states:
“Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.”[3]
This appears to address only those that drift away due to spiritual weakness, not those that no longer wish to be considered a member of the organization. However, it is difficult to understand why this is relevant to the question since inactive ones are not considered former members. The book Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will states:
“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.
33 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. (2015 Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will pgs. 142-143 pars. 32-33)
So they do shun former members! The FAQ is deceptive in that it answers no to the question about shunning former members by stating their policy of how they deal with inactive ones that are still considered members. In any event, this reaching out to an inactive person is usually accomplished only by elders. Congregation members are instructed to view such ones as bad association and generally avoid contact with them.[4] This is because such ones are viewed as spiritually weak and may be critical of the elders or the organization. Congregation elders are instructed that once a year in association with the memorial, only they, along with ministerial servants may visit inactive ones in their groups.[5]
If a confidential or serious matter comes up during the visit, the elder would inform the ministerial servant that it would be best for the matter to be handled by the elders. When wrongdoing of sufficient gravity comes to the attention of the elders, a judicial committee, usually of three elders, is to be convened. The person is then privately put under rigorous examination to determine whether or not there exists heartfelt repentance. If the committee decides that he or she is unrepentant the following announcement is read to the congregation: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” The congregation is not made aware of the charges nor testimony during the case, but all are expected from the time of the announcement to loyally uphold the decision and shun the individual. This is viewed as loving discipline from Jehovah to shock the person to his senses and move him to repentance. (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20)
Yet an examination of the history of the organization reveals that private judicial hearings were not always the procedure.
Originally, the procedure laid out by C T Russell, following Jesus words in Matthew 18:15-17, was for the entire congregation to hear the matter if it could not be resolved privately by the parties involved, one on one or with the aid of two witnesses. (1904 Studies in the Scriptures vol. 6 The New Creation pgs. 289-293)
Then in 1944, under the presidency of N.H. Knorr, it was decided that only responsible elders should try cases. Paragraph 24 of the May 15th 1944 Watchtower states:
“It must always be kept in mind that God’s organization of his people is Theocratic, not democratic. The laws of his organization come from himself, the great Theocrat, Jehovah, the Supreme One. The laws of the organization do not draw their strength and validness from the voice or vote of the congregation and are not applied because of the consent of the governed. “For Jehovah is our judge, Jehovah is our lawgiver, Jehovah is our king; he will save us.” (Isa. 33: 22, Am. Stan. Ver.) Quaintly put, a Theocratic organization is ruled from the top down (which means from the Most High God downward) and not from the bottom up (that is, from the people of the congregation upward).”
These words sound very good on the surface. But along with this reasoning the creation of a hierarchy, a sort of priesthood similar to Catholicism in between Jehovah and the rank and file witness, is unavoidable. One wonders though, just how does the Most High God communicate his laws and instructions to the leadership of his Theocratic organization in a way different from the rest of the congregation? Do not all have the instructions of the great Theocrat, the Bible at their disposal? Did not Jesus, the one entrusted by Jehovah, the great Theocrat, with all authority in heaven and on earth, direct that the matter be heard by the entire congregation? How could disobeying his command ever be considered theocratic?[6]
Did God inspire the governing body to come up with such an arrangement? The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has said:
“We have not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425)
“Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December 15, 1896, page 306)
The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit
“does not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157)
Yet in defense of this new judicial arrangement, paragraph 26 of the May 15th 1944 Watchtower states:
“The matter for straightening out should not be aired before the whole congregation for judgment, and take up everybody’s time and consideration. It should be quietly laid before the representative members of the congregation or company, the ones that are charged with the responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the brethren and for the direction of their service to the Lord.”
Yet Jesus said if the matter cannot be resolved with the aid of two or three witnesses it should be brought before the congregation. Since this was prior to the formation of the Christian congregation, there is no reason to believe he had congregation elders in mind. Since the writers of The Watchtower are neither inspired nor infallible what scriptural support was offered to substantiate the claim that by saying “the congregation”, Jesus meant the matter should be “quietly” laid before the congregation elders? None was provided. Therefore, what justification could there be for disregarding the instructions of the head of the Christian congregation?
The article continues:
“The case recorded at Deuteronomy 21:18-21 illustrates this way of proceeding in an orderly, Theocratic manner. The record reads: “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his. mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” According to this procedure, the hearing of the case and the rendering of the decision should be confined to the representative brethren, as pictured by the city elders, not elective elders as in religious organizations, but elders who are such due to Christian knowledge, growth and experience.
Their decision must be according to Theocratic law. After they render the decision, the congregation may hear about the matter and may concur in the decision and in the action due.” (The Watchtower May 15, 1944 pg. 152 par. 26)
While it is true that under the law, the case was to be brought to the elders serving as judges, it is important to note that Deuteronomy mentions that the trial would take place in the gate of the city. The importance of this detail will be focused on later in the section “Who determines if a person should be disfellowshipped? But for now, suffice it to say there were more present at the city gate than just the elders. It was a public place. That means that the entire assembly was aware of the situation and participated in the judgment. This was also the case in the first century. (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 6:1-3)
In any event, it was not until 1952 that the formal arrangement of disfellowshipping was instituted in which elders privately tried cases. Prior to that the Watchtower society even condemned the practice as unscriptural.[7]
What would be the future for such a person?
“Such an individual has no place in the clean organization or congregation of God. He should go back to the wicked group that he once came from and die with that wicked group with Satan’s organization. (The Watchtower March 1, 1952 pg. 134 par. 8)
“Disfellowshipping means the casting of a member out of God’s household; and if one should remain in this disfellowshipped condition till he died, it would mean his everlasting destruction as a person who is rejected by God.” (The Watchtower December 15, 1965 pg. 751 par. 15)
“In actuality, they must be expelled (disfellowshipped and put in a deathlike condition) from the Christian congregation.” (The Watchtower July 1, 1966 pg. 401 par. 10)
Understandably, this puts great strain when a family member is disfellowshipped. The society’s official online statement asks:
“What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.”
In other words, family members can discuss anything with the disfellowshipped one except the Bible. What is not mentioned is this allowance is made only for disfellowshipped members living within the same household.
The reality is, normal family dealings are severely affected when a member living outside the family household is disfellowshipped, even though there is nothing in the Bible that says such a distinction should be made. In the above mentioned 2016 Regional Convention symposium, a video was played that depicted a mother not even answering a phone call from her disfellowshipped daughter.[8]
The scene depicts the daughter as saying:
“They thought about reaching out to me. But they knew that if they associated with me, even for just a little, just to check on me. That small dose of association might have satisfied me. It could have made me think there was no need to return to Jehovah.”
This is a quote that appears in two separate experiences in the Watchtower magazine.[9]
Clearly the aim is to control what is considered to be undesirable behavior by removing not only spiritual association but close familial association as well. All too often this results in disfellowshipped ones outwardly displaying a repentant attitude, in order to get reinstated, but inwardly doing so not because of love for God but only to restore connections with family and friends. If one simply cannot bear the loss of social connections with family and friends, the only logical course would be to do whatever is necessary to regain it. Even if that means giving the appearance of complying with the rules of the organization.
A growing number of persons are calling for such practices of undue influence to be investigated.
To be fair, however, the society is not the only organization to implement this form of discipline:
Banned From Church Alexandra Alter, Wall Street Journal, Jan 18, 2008. Reports on:
…a growing movement among some conservative Protestant pastors to bring back church discipline, an ancient practice in which suspected sinners are privately confronted and then publicly castigated and excommunicated if they refuse to repent. While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.
Scientology: The Unperson. Robert Farley, St.
Petersburg Times, June 25, 2006 states:
Scientologists who cross their religion can be declared suppressive persons, shunned by peers and ostracized by family. […]
Scientologists declare their outcasts “suppressive persons.”
Another Scientology policy – called “disconnection” – forbids Scientologists from interacting with a suppressive person. No calls, no letters, no contact.
An SP is a pariah. Anyone who communicates with an SP risks being branded an SP himself. […]
Whatever Scientology’s motivation, its suppressive person policy results in wrenching pain, say a dozen SPs interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times.
Some have gone years without seeing or talking with sons, daughters, mothers, fathers – all of whom abide by Scientology’s no-contact requirement.
For a Scientologist thinking of forsaking the church, the decision is grueling: stay in or risk being ostracized from loved ones and friends.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are hardly unique in sometimes removing folks from membership in the congregation.
“Almost any religious body would, on occasion, drop a membership – by request, due to inactivity or as a matter of discipline due to some kind of moral failure,” said Ron Stansell, professor of religion studies at George Fox University.
Catholics, for instance, can be excommunicated – denied sacraments considered their means of salvation.
But the Jehovah’s Witnesses are among a minority of Christian groups in the United States known to cut off social – and, as a result, business and family – contact with the disfellow- shipped.
Such shunning is “a fairly common practice of radical reformation sects, groups that tend to be drawn in very much on themselves,” said Carl Raschke, a Denver University religious studies professor.
Other practitioners include certain Old Order Mennonite and Amish communities, Hutterites and the Bruderhof.
[…]
“Disfellowshipping is not the most radical practice out there”, Colorado College professor David Weddle said. Some ultra-orthodox Jewish congregations, for example, go so far as to hold funerals for former members who decide to marry outside the religion.
And in some extremist Islamic groups around the world, apostasy (renunciation of faith) is considered punishable by death.
– Source: Karen McGowan, Many Religions Remove Members, The Register Guard, March 2, 2003
As 1 Corinthians 5:13 shows, it goes without question that the Bible does recommend the removal of unrepentant practicers of wrongdoing from Christian fellowship. What is controversial about the application of this among modern religious groups, however, basically falls into four main areas:
- What constitutes a disfellowshipping offense?
- Who determines if a person should be disfellowshipped?
- How should a disfellowshipped person be treated?
- When can a disfellowshipped person be welcomed back?
I invite you to consider an examination of these four areas and what the scriptures say regarding them in the series “How Should a Disfellowshipped Person Be Treated?”
[1] See The Watchtower July 15, 1985 pg. 19 par.14
[2] See The Watchtower January 15, 2013 pgs. 15-16 pars. 16-20
[3] (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/#?insight[search_id]=c891918c-b682-4d95-b9a4-e655653b5375&insight[search_result_index]=0)
[4] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=745aXHQWrok This video clip is taken from the talk by Stephen Lett entitled: Young Ones Build Your Future With Jehovah
[5] See 2019 Shepherd the Flock chapter 25 par. 15
[6] As a matter of fact, at one time, the Watchtower society condemned the Catholic Church for practicing excommunication. See Awake January 8, 1947 pgs. 27-28
[7] See The Watchtower October 1, 1967 pg. 596 par. 18; The Watchtower February 15, 1976 pg. 122 par. 13; The Watchtower March 1, 1952 pgs. 131-148
[8] (see the video “Loyally Upholding Jehovah’s Judgments”)
[9] See The Watchtower April 15, 2012 pg. 12 par. 17 and The Watchtower June 15, 2013 pg. 28 par. 17