Study article 39 in the September 2021 issue of the Watchtower purports to be about disfellowshipping, but reading through it gives me the distinct impression that they are really trying to portray persons that disassociate themselves from the organization in the worst possible way, as selfish, cruel monsters that abandon God and their family.
The article is entitled: When a Loved One Leaves Jehovah
Paragraph 1 relates this experience:
“When my faithful spouse died after 41 years of marriage,” says a sister named Hilda, “I thought it was the worst thing I could ever experience. But when my son left the congregation, his wife, and his children, it was far, far worse for me.”
It would indeed be tragic and un-Christian for a man to abandon his family, but if, according to the society, disfellowshipping is an action taken by the congregation, why does it relate an experience of a person that left the congregation? That would be disassociation would it not? Furthermore, even in cases of disassociation, it is unfair to characterize everyone leaving the congregation in this way. There is a failure in this article to recognize the possibility that anyone leaving the organization does so because he no longer believes it is guided by God. If you were to ask any one of Jehovah’s Witnesses if leaving any other one of the churches of Christendom meant that a person was abandoning his faith in God or his family members that still remain in that church they would readily say no. Yet in this article witnesses are led to believe that leaving the witness organization means the person is leaving Jehovah. And not only Jehovah but abandoning his family as well.
Witnesses are told to shun persons that are no longer part of the congregation. Yet the impression here given is that it is the other way around, that former members choose to shun not only God but their family and friends. It reminds me of an argument put forth by two Watchtower representatives in 2015 at the Australian Royal Commission:
Paragraph 2 cites Psalm 78:40, 41. There, the Psalmist records how Jehovah felt when his servants abandon him. Nothing is said about a particular 21st century Christian denomination. In fact witnesses would say God rejoices when anyone follows the instruction given in Revelation 18:4 and leaves the world empire of false religion, what they consider to be Babylon the Great. What is assumed, yet never proven, is that a person leaving the organization is leaving the truth. This connection is repeatedly made throughout the article.
Paragraph 4 relates another experience:
When a precious son or daughter leaves Jehovah, it is common for the parents to wonder what more they could have done to help their young one stay in the truth. After his son was disfellowshipped, a brother named Luke admitted: “I blamed myself. I had nightmares about it. Sometimes I would cry and my heart ached.” Elizabeth, a sister who faced a similar situation, agonized: “What did I do wrong as a mother? I felt that I must have failed to inculcate the truth in my son.”
The exact details about what the son did that resulted in his disfellowshipping is not mentioned. Did he abandon God? Did he repudiate Christianity? If not, then why is it said that he left Jehovah? That action would fall under the term disassociation. According to the Watchtower, disfellowshipping is said to be loving discipline meted out by congregation elders, not a decision to leave made by the person. After serving on a number of judicial committees myself as a former elder I can say that I have never encountered a person that appeared before a committee because he wanted to be disfellowshipped and I would venture to say that such a situation has never happened. Even the man Paul wrote about in his first letter to the Corinthians wanted to remain a brother. (1 Cor. 5:11)
Paragraph 5 makes the statement: “We need to remember that Jehovah has given each of us the gift of free will. This means that we can choose whether we will obey him or not.”
While it is true that Jehovah has given each of us the gift of free will, the organization takes that free will away from its members. The governing body has appointed itself as God’s means of explaining the Bible to men. All of Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to accept only their interpretation of scripture as this 1981 Watchtower clearly states:
“No matter where we may live on earth, God’s Word continues to serve as a light to our path and a lamp to our roadway as to our conduct and beliefs. (Ps. 119:105) But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his “faithful and discreet slave,” made up of spirit-anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives. Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.—Compare Acts 8:30-40. (The Watchtower December 1, 1981 pg. 27 par. 4)
So witnesses are really not allowed to choose whether they will obey God or not.
Galatians 6:5 is cited and the point is made that each dedicated and baptized individual must “carry his own load of responsibility. But the article has not yet mentioned the word disassociation, making it appear that disfellowshipping is a choice made by the person. Choosing to leave an organization that a person considers to be deviating from God’s word is a choice God expects a person to make. But this is not at all addressed in this article.
Although the article discusses disfellowshipping, nothing is said about the associated practice of shunning. According to this policy, witnesses are not allowed to even say a greeting to a disfellowshipped person. Hence, there is no possibility for family members to discern the person’s reason for leaving or their attitude in order to reason with them or encourage them to return.
The statements in the box “Return to Jehovah” utter a dire warning to disfellowshipped persons since the organization teaches that they would be destroyed should Armageddon occur with them still in the disfellowshipped state as is stated in this 1965 Watchtower article:
“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)
The statement in the box “life in this system is short and uncertain. None of us can know if we will be alive tomorrow” likewise is made to strike fear since witnesses are taught that if a person dies in the disfellowshipped state he will not receive a resurrection. It is indeed arrogant and presumptuous for anyone to say what God’s judgment would be. (Romans 14:10-12) If witnesses truly believe that, would it not be heartless and cruel to focus on building up one’s own relationship with God and concentrating on trying to save the lives of people from death at Armageddon by sparing no effort to preach to them while completely ignoring the plight of a disfellowshipped relative? Yet the rest of the article goes on to encourage witnesses to do just that. According to paragraph 18 only Jehovah can reach out to them.
Disfellowshipping is part of Jehovah’s arrangement and is a form of discipline aimed at hopefully bringing an unrepentant sinner to his senses. However, that is not Paul’s point in Hebrews chapter 12 which says nothing about sin being committed. A better choice of scripture would be either 1 Cor. 5:5 or 1 Tim. 1:20. Where Paul instructs the congregation to “hand such a man over to Satan”.
The context shows that Hebrews 12:11 is not talking about accepting discipline meted out by congregation elders. In the previous chapter Paul lists various pre-Christian servants of God that were renown for their faith. The last part of the chapter, beginning with verse 32, he mentions those that suffered persecution because of their faith. With this in mind chapter 12 begins:
“So, then, because we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also put off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus. For the joy that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Indeed, consider closely the one who has endured such contrary talk by sinners against their own interests, that you may not get tired and give out in your souls. In carrying on your contest against that sin you have never yet resisted as far as blood, but you have entirely forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle [the] discipline from Jehovah, neither give out when you are corrected by him; for whom Jehovah loves he disciplines; in fact, he scourges every one whom he receives as a son.” (Heb. 12:1-4)
So Paul’s point had nothing to do with being disciplined for being an unrepentant sinner. It was about enduring false charges and suffering persecution for righteousness sake. Viewing this as a form of discipline. The Watchtower society knows this. Note how this is stressed in an October 1978 issue of The Watchtower:
“The Bible, however, presents the matter of a person’s being forced to undergo mistreatment as something highly profitable. Christianized Jews in the first century were told: “In carrying on your contest against that sin you have never resisted as far as blood, but you have entirely forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons: ‘My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, neither give out when you are corrected by him; for whom Jehovah loves he disciplines; in fact, he scourges every one whom he receives as a son.’”—Heb. 12:4-6.
3 The opposition directed against Christianized Jews was indeed severe. But their struggling against the easily entangling sin—loss of faith—had not come to the point of having their blood spilled. Many of them possibly were halfhearted in the race for life and so were not carrying on the contest against this sin in a way that would be needed for them to succeed in ‘resisting it as far as blood.’ They were getting tired of having to face the reproaches of godless people. (Heb. 12:3) They failed to realize that the harsh treatment from opposers served as discipline from Jehovah and confirmed that he loved them deeply as his sons. They had forgotten the Scriptural exhortation found at Proverbs 3:11, 12…
4 In harmony with this inspired counsel, how should Christians view the suffering that Jehovah God permits to befall them? We should regard it as a form of discipline or training given to us by a Father who has deep love for us and is interested in our eternal welfare. The fact that such discipline is received proves undeniably that we are being treated like sons and not like unwanted and unloved illegitimate children. Since Jehovah God permits Christians to experience this severe treatment, we should humbly submit to it. This also agrees with the apostle Peter’s admonition: “Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time; while you throw all your anxiety upon him, because he cares for you.”—1 Pet. 5:6, 7. (The Watchtower October 15, 1978 pgs. 18-19 pars. 2-4)
What is not a part of Jehovah’s arrangement is the secret handling of wrongdoing by a designated committee of elders who alone have the task of determining whether a sinner is repentant. If the individual has ceased involvement in the conduct, expresses remorse and promises not to engage in it again, how are elders able to determine if his expressions are genuine?
Without the ability to read hearts, any decision they make at that point could only be an educated guess. Are elders infallible? Are their judgments always right? Oftentimes, the decision is that the person must first be disfellowshipped and then provide evidence of repentance while in the disfellowshipped state. (See paragraphs 16-18 in the article What is True Repentance? in the October 2021 issue of the Watchtower.)
But this is contrary to Jesus example. (Luke 5:30-32; Rev. 2:20-22) In his illustration of the Prodigal Son, the father welcomed back the son on that day. Also, Jesus never instructed the tax collectors and harlots to go and confess their sins to the Pharisees.
It is understandable that it would be difficult to support a decision affecting the relationship with a loved one when you are not allowed to know the facts. That is why judicial decisions under the Law were handled at the city gate. (Deut. 21:18-21)
Insight on the Scriptures actually points to this fact as an excelling feature of the Mosaic Law arrangement:
“The local court was situated at the gate of a city. (De 16:18; 21:19; 22:15, 24; 25:7; Ru 4:1) By “gate” is meant the open space inside the city near the gate. The gates were places where the Law was read to the congregated people and where ordinances were proclaimed. (Ne 8:1-3) At the gate it was easy to acquire witnesses to a civil matter, such as property sales, and so forth, as most persons would go in and out of the gate during the day. Also, the publicity that would be afforded any trial at the gate would tend to influence the judges toward care and justice in the trial proceedings and in their decisions. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 518)
In harmony with this, Jesus instructed bringing matters before the congregation. (Matt. 18:17) There is no record that he gave any instructions for the setting up of judicial committees, composed of elders to try cases in the Christian congregation in imitation of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
Following Jesus instructions would eliminate the anxiety associated with severing family association. First because Jesus never instructed that the person be completely shunned. He/she would be treated as Jesus treated Gentiles and tax collectors which were not completely shunned.
In the June 2013 issue of Awake magazine, an article appears that condemns marriage mates giving each other the silent treatment as being retaliatory and manipulative. Amazingly, the organization cannot see the irony in this when it proposes, not just disfellowshipping but, shunning as a loving arrangement that may move a sinner to repent.
Second, because family members would themselves be involved in the process. There would be no question as to whether the elders judged the person fairly. Thus the secret judicial hearings carried out in congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses are out of harmony with the Bible. Following Jesus instructions completely eliminates the problems presented in paragraphs 11 and 12. All present should hear the proceedings, especially if they are to take part in the punishment.
If you feel my assessment of this study article has left out any relevant points or is in any way unfair, please let me know in the comments. The article can be found on their official website.