This article is in response to an article written by Massimo Introvigne a Roman Catholic scholar from Turin Italy who defends cults and new religious movements. He has been requested by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to defend their religious rights in court. This is his second article written in defense of their practice of disfellowshipping and shunning. As a former member of Jehovah’s Witnesses for over 40 years, I am very knowledgeable of their practices and found this article to be a very biased misrepresentation of the facts.
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Shunning. 2. Disassociation and Disfellowshipping 05/04/2022 by MASSIMO INTROVIGNE Article 2 of 6. Read article 1
There are two categories of former Jehovah’s Witnesses who may be subject to shunning. The first includes those who had been disfellowshipped. The second comprise those who have disassociated themselves from the organization.
Before discussing shunning, it is therefore necessary to understand disfellowshipping, but first we should examine the case of those who voluntarily disassociate themselves. Opponents sometimes claim that it is unfair to treat in the same way those who have been disfellowshipped for serious sins and those who have simply left the Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, this objection is based on a misunderstanding.
I would think most people would not consider leaving a religion to be a serious sin. So, why should they receive the same treatment? However, it is important to point out that individuals that no longer attend meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not viewed as having left the religion. They are considered to be inactive members and are not shunned. Only those that have formerly disassociated themselves, either verbally or by letter, are considered as having left. This is the group he targets in the rest of his article. However, I fail to see the difference between writing a letter or verbally announcing ones leaving and just leaving. Why is one worse than the other?
There is a large sociological literature on “non-practicing” or “lapsed” members of a religion. For instance, most of those who have been baptized as Roman Catholics are inactive, i.e. they rarely if ever attend Mass and other ceremonies, and regard themselves as “non-practicing.” In almost all countries with a Catholic majority, sociologists believe that there are now more “non-practicing” or “lapsed” Catholics than active Catholics. Only in Germany, before 2009 (when the Catholic Church changed its rules) it was comparatively common for lapsed Catholics to enter a formal declaration of “defection” in their parish’s registers. They did so to avoid paying the church tax the German state collects for the benefit of the Catholic Church from those registered as Catholics.
With this very special exception, the overwhelming majority of lapsed Catholics do not formally disassociate themselves from the Catholic Church. Only a tiny minority of apostate ex-Catholics, who have turned into vociferous opponents of their former church, write strong-worded letters or publicly declare their apostasy, or announce that they have joined another religion or become atheists. Under the prevalent interpretation of Catholic Canon Law these militant apostates are ipso facto excommunicated, which is not the case for the lapsed Catholics.
However, even excommunicated Catholics are not shunned. (See below)
The situation is the same among the Jehovah’s Witnesses. As all large religious organizations, every year the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a percentage of “lapsed” members who become in different ways inactive, just as they have a percentage of new members who join the organization. The Witnesses say of those who become inactive that “their faith has become weak.” They no longer participate in congregational meetings, no longer preach to others, perhaps even drift away from their association with fellow believers. These “lapsed” or “weak” believers are not disfellowshipped nor shunned.
In contrast, those rarer apostate ex-members who have formally and publicly renounced their faith and disassociate themselves from the congregation either in writing or by action (e.g., by formally joining another religion, or a secular organization that according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses “has objectives contrary to Bible teachings”) are considered as being in the same position as those who have been disfellowshipped.
Clearly the aim here is to cast all persons that disassociate themselves from Jehovah’s Witnesses by leaving the organization, whether by joining another religion or not, as loudmouths and troublemakers guilty of gross sin. What about those that disassociate themselves but do not speak out against the organization? Apparently, he does not recognize that as a possibility. Why should they be treated any differently from those considered inactive?
Furthermore, what is left out is the fact that the chief work of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to encourage persons of other religions, Catholic or otherwise to disassociate themselves from their religion, which witnesses consider false, in order to become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are even encouraged to put it in writing.
For a person to argue in favor of a religion’s right to shun former members, would he not have to be in support of all religions that practice it? But such a course, rather than encourage cohesiveness among families and society at large would lead to further divisions.
It is even stressed in the Watchtower organization, that to simply leave their former religion is not enough. Witnesses are encouraged to write a letter requesting to be removed from the membership rolls of their former church.
The book God’s Kingdom Rules states:
“15 The Bible Students taught that it was necessary to break away from worldly churches. In 1879, the Watch Tower referred to the “Babylon church.” Was it talking about the papacy? The Roman Catholic Church? Protestant denominations had for centuries made such applications of Babylon as a prophetic type in Scripture. However, the Bible Students gradually came to the realization that all the churches of Christendom were included in modern-day “Babylon.” Why? Because they all taught doctrinal lies such as those discussed above. In time, our publications became more and more direct about what honesthearted members of Babylon’s churches should do.
16 For example, in 1891, Volume III of Millennial Dawn discussed God’s rejection of modern-day Babylon and noted: “The whole system—a system of systems—is rejected.” It added that all those “not in sympathy with her false doctrines and practices are now called to separate themselves from her.”
17 In January 1900, the Watch Tower offered counsel to those who still kept their names on the denominational rolls of Christendom’s churches and who rationalized their course, saying, “My sympathies are all with the truth, and I rarely attend other meetings.” The article asked: “But is this right—to be half out and half in Babylon? Is this the obedience required . . . and pleasing and acceptable to God? Surely not. He [the church member] publicly entered into a covenant with the denomination when he joined it, and he should faithfully live up to all the conditions of that covenant until he . . . publicly renounces or cancels his membership.” Over the years, that message became stronger. Servants of Jehovah must renounce all ties with false religion. (God’s Kingdom Rules pgs. 16-17)
It is very deceptive and hardly becoming of an independent scholar not to mention such a double standard.
As mentioned earlier, this is by no means unique to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For example, according to the prevailing interpretation of Canon Law, the same situation exists in the Catholic Church.
Almost all religions have procedures for excommunicating or excluding members guilty of serious offenses from their fold. These offenses may be moral, such as adultery, systematic drunkenness, or theft, or religious, such as denying essential principles of the faith.
In the Catholic Church, excommunicated members are not shunned and are still considered part of the Church:
According to Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, “excommunication does not expel the person from the Catholic Church, but simply forbids the excommunicated person from engaging in certain activities.”[11] These activities are listed in Canon 1331 §1, and prohibit the individual from any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship; celebrating or receiving the sacraments; or exercising any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions.[12][13]
Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). “Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty.”[14] They are urged to retain a relationship with the church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.
For Catholics who remain in communion with the church, there are no legal restrictions whatsoever on their social interactions with excommunicated persons. Excommunication – Wikipedia
Most religions, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, protect the privacy of the excluded members and do not publicly state the reasons for their exclusion. While this is laudable, and in some countries mandated by secular privacy laws, it allows for misrepresentation. Not surprisingly, ex-members who have been excluded for immorality or theft may not be willing to advertise their peccadillos, and may prefer to report that the reason for their exclusion was doctrinal disagreement. In fact, leading academic scholars of the Jehovah’s Witnesses such as George Chryssides have observed that sexual immorality is the most frequent reason leading to being disfellowshipped.
For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the notion of “unrepentant sin” is also important. The study edition of “The Watchtower” for October 2021, for example, specifies that “Unrepentant wrongdoers are disfellowshipped from the congregation.” Non-repentance is an essential factor in disfellowshipping.
It has repeatedly happened that disfellowshipped Jehovah’s Witnesses have asked secular courts to reconsider the decisions of the organizations’ judicial committees. They have consistently lost, with rare exceptions, such as a bizarre Norwegian decision in 2021, which is under appeal. However, these cases are in their own way useful, as they have produced a comprehensive assessment of the process leading to disfellowshipping by observers who are by definition neutral such as secular judges.
Courts of law have maintained that decisions of disfellowshipping or exclusion by a religious body are not justiciable, and are protected by the basic religious freedom principle that religions are free to self-organize themselves without interference from the states. In 2007, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee observed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses “argue that the freedom of religious bodies to determine their own membership is such a fundamentally ecclesiastical matter that courts are prohibited from adjudicating disputes over membership or expulsion. We agree. Because religious bodies are free to establish their own guidelines for membership and a governance system to resolve disputes about membership without interference from civil authorities, decisions to exclude persons from membership are not reviewable by civil courts.”
In 2018, in the case “Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall,” a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that “secular judicial determinations of theological or religious disputes, or of contentious matters of religious doctrine, unjustifiably entangle the court in the affairs of religion.” It added that “even the procedural rules of a particular religious group may involve the interpretation of religious doctrine,” and concluded that “these types of [religious] procedural rules are also not justiciable.”
Sociologists would agree, having been taught by Max Weber (1864–1920) that procedure in a religious organization is in itself theology. Among the Jehovah’s Witnesses, procedural rules are rooted in religious belief rather than derived from secular law. Some terminology may sound court-like (“notice,” “opportunity to be heard,” “appeal”) but the context its undoubtedly religious: judicial meetings open with prayer and refer to Biblical principles. The unavoidable conclusion is that these rules and procedures are inherently religious.
While European courts have also generally ruled in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses in disfellowshipping cases, there is a nuance with respect to North American decisions. Italian courts, for example, have repeatedly commented that, while secular judges cannot compel ecclesiastical courts to adopt the same rules of national or European tribunals, because they cannot interfere with how religions decide to organize themselves, nonetheless they can examine whether judicial committees did follow their own rules, and whether in some form the right of the defendant to be heard, which is a basic human right, was granted to the person who had been disfellowshipped. Courts in Bari (in 2004 and 2007), in Rome (2021), and most recently in Teramo have concluded that the judicial committees do apply the rules set forth by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and these rules grant the defendants the right to be heard and defend themselves.
Admittedly, deciding cases involving religious shunning has produced an ethical dilemma for the courts. Not all justices are in agreement.
Additionally, after a decision disfellowshipping them, the defendants are allowed to appeal. In this case, as explained in chapter 14, no. 26, of the internal manual “Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will,” “the body of elders will contact the circuit overseer, who will select qualified elders [normally from a different congregation] to serve on an appeal committee to rehear the case.”
Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Organized book states:
“26 When it has been determined that an unrepentant wrongdoer should be disfellowshipped, a judicial committee should let the person know of the decision, clearly stating the Scriptural reason(s) for the disfellowshipping. Upon informing the wrongdoer of the decision, the judicial committee will tell him that if he believes that a serious error in judgment has been made and he wishes to appeal the decision, he should do so in a letter, clearly stating the reasons for his appeal. Counting from the time he was notified of the committee’s decision, he will be given seven days for this. If an appeal is received, the body of elders will contact the circuit overseer, who will select qualified elders to serve on an appeal committee to rehear the case. They will make every effort to conduct the appeal hearing within one week after the letter is received. If there is an appeal, announcement of the disfellowshipping will be postponed. In the meantime, the accused person will be restricted from commenting and praying at meetings and from special privileges of service.
27 An appeal is granted as a kindness to the accused and allows him a further hearing of his concerns. Thus, if the wrongdoer deliberately fails to appear at the appeal hearing, the disfellowshipping will be announced after reasonable efforts have been made to contact him.” (Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will pg. 151 pars. 26-27)
All Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “publishers” have a copy of this book, and it is easily available in print and electronic format.
However, instructions to elders for how an appeal is to be handled is not provided to the rank and file witness. Shepherd the Flock of God, the handbook for elders states the following:
7. After gathering the facts, the appeal committee should deliberate in private. They should consider the answers to two questions: (1) Was it established that the accused committed a disfellowshipping offense?—See 12:2, 40-42. (2) Did the accused demonstrate repentance commensurate with the gravity of his wrongdoing at the time of the hearing with the judicial committee? (Shepherd the Flock of God ch. 17.7
It should be obvious from this that if it is determined that if the answer to the first question is yes, and it is established that a disfellowshipping offense was committed, the decision to disfellowship will be upheld since there is no way for the appeal committee, since they were not present, to disagree with the assessment of the original committee as to whether or not repentance was shown.
What offenses are ground for disfellowshipping, on the other hand, is a theological question on which secular judges cannot interfere, as the High Court of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, confirmed on June 7, 2019 (the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in London, Queen’s Bench Division, on March 17, 2020).
While what offenses are so serious that they should lead to disfellowshipping is a matter on which the Jehovah’s Witnesses are free to decide themselves, it is important to note that, notwithstanding anecdotes apostate ex-members like to report (and which should always be verified without accepting them at face value), disfellowshipping does not happen for minor mistakes but for unrepentant serious moral sins, or for publicly denying doctrines the Jehovah’s Witnesses regard as essential. Some in our liberal modern societies may regard excommunication or disfellowshipping as generally unacceptable, but they exist in all religions, not to mention political parties, trade unions, and other secular organizations.
While excommunication exists in other religions and organizations, shunning does not. Former witnesses generally do not have a problem with disfellowshipping. It is shunning, particularly when family members and friends still in the religion are threatened with being shunned themselves for not obeying the shunning decree, that is the complaint.
In these cases courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, have repeatedly ruled that freedom of speech and religious liberty of those excluded are not violated. If they disagree with the moral and theological standards of their religion, their individual liberty is protected by the fact that nobody prevents them from leaving it and join or establish a religious organization with entirely different practices and beliefs.
It is difficult to comprehend how the threat of losing all social connections could not be something that prevents one from leaving a religious organization. This article also fails to recognize that shunning is mandated by the organization. It is not possible for any member to disagree without penalty. Furthermore, most if not all of Jehovah’s Witnesses know nothing about the circumstances surrounding the decision made by a private judicial committee of three elders to disfellowship. All they hear is an announcement that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence, the only personal choice that can be made by the individual witness is to uphold the disfellowshipping decree.
It should be added that, like other religions that practice forms of excommunication or exclusion, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the function of disfellowshipping is more medicinal than punitive. It is an open offer to the disfellowshipped persons to amend their ways and repent.
This only makes sense if the person believes that the organization that disfellowshipped him teaches the truth. How is it possible for a person that has disassociated himself over doctrinal concerns to repent? Thus disfellowshipping in the hands of a religious organization becomes a powerful tool to control not only behavior but can also effectively suppress any valid criticisms whether of its Biblical interpretations or even of abuse of it’s authority.
In fact, many do. As the study edition of the official magazine “The Watchtower” stated in October 2021, “Is disfellowshipping really an expression of mercy? Yes, it is. To withhold discipline from someone who needs it is not wise, merciful, or loving. (Prov. 13:24) Can getting disfellowshipped help an unrepentant sinner change his course? It can. Many who have fallen into serious sin have found that the firm action the elders took gave them the very jolt they needed to come to their senses, change their course of action, and return to Jehovah’s warm embrace.”
Scholars who have studied the Jehovah’s Witnesses have all met members who had been disfellowshipped and had later returned to their congregation. This is evidence that claims about the medicinal role of disfellowshipping are not merely rhetorical. Jehovah’s Witnesses make genuine efforts to put these teachings into practice. Their efforts are often successful.
What scholars? Why is there no source cited? This is very one sided since any reports about the harmfulness of the practice are regarded as “anecdotes apostate ex-members like to report” and are dismissed without verification.
Shannon Thomas, LCSW is a licensed clinical social worker supervisor, and the owner/lead therapist of Southlake Christian Counseling (SCC) in Southlake, Texas.
In her book “Healing from Hidden Abuse” she writes:
“There has been a trend towards some toxic church leaders and congregation members using “shunning” as a form of punishment towards individuals, couples, and even families. Why? The Scripture about not associating with the unrepentant is being twisted to justify psychologically abusing people by withholding relationship and support. Rather than being restoration focused, these toxic leaders and members are primarily concerned with maintaining control over people, and keeping their constructed public image untarnished. Shunning is being used against healthy people who simply dare to speak out about a powerful narcissistic, sociopathic, or psychopathic leader or member. In many situations, it is not being used merely for the “safety” of the congregation, as the leaders tell people. It is a version of sweeping issues under the proverbial rug and pretending the complaints are limited to a few “haters” of the church or ministry. When toxic church or ministry leaders feel threatened by the truth being revealed, they attack. The perfect target is the messenger of the truth. Those are typically people who were once close to the leaders, but fell out of good graces when they began asking the wrong (but actually correct) questions. Psychologically abusive leaders can be so well insulated by yes[1]men and yes-women, that to be questioned about their actions comes as a rude awakening. The individuals and couples who dare to stand up will be shunned out of the congregation community. The larger the congregation or ministry staff, the more well insulated a toxic leader will become. At some point, they are out of reach of any constructive criticism or exposure for abusive behaviors.” (Healing from Hidden Abuse – Shannon Thomas, LCSW)
(For an in-depth study of the harmful effects of shunning, see ‘A LOVING PROVISION’ ? HOW FORMER JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES EXPERIENCE SHUNNING PRACTICES. by Julia Gutgsell Master’s thesis Academy year 2016-2017)
Contrary to the arguments put forth in this article, I consider it absurd to describe disfellowshipping, as outlined by the Watchtower society with the setting up of judicial committees of elders and holding secret star chamber trials to judge the heart condition of those committing sins and then requiring the shunning of those determined as lacking repentance by all of their friends and family members as a loving provision. Conspicuous by the absence of any reference to Jesus on whose teachings Christianity is supposed to be based, there is a complete failure by Mr. Introvigne to show that the way the Watchtower society employs shunning is at all in harmony with what he instructed.