—REVIEW—
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not engage in politics. But what happens if a Witness accepts a political position or votes for a political candidate? The elders in his congregation will decide that in this case, the person voluntarily has disassociated himself from the congregation and is no longer a part of it.
The elders may also decide that the occupation of a brother makes him “a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities.” In that case, he must change his occupation within six months. If he does not, the elders will decide that he voluntarily has left the congregation. I will show that “disassociation” is a euphemism for disfellowshipping and that the brother, in reality, is thrown out of the congregation against his will.
According to The Watchtower Online Library, the first time disassociation is mentioned, is in The Watchtower of February 15, 1972. However, a possible violation of one’s neutrality is mentioned in the book Questions in connection with the service of the Kingdom (1961). The book says that if a brother violates his neutrality, his publisher card will be removed from the card file in the congregation, and he will be viewed as one who voluntarily has left the congregation. If he changes his mind, he must write a letter and ask for reinstatement in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. But it is not said that he must be shunned like a disfellowshipped person.
The Watchtower of September 15. 1981, pages 23 and 24, speaks about disassociation, and it says that a disassociated person should be viewed and treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person; he must be shunned. This was reiterated in The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 27.
An article in the Kingdom Ministry of September 1976 shows that if a person has an occupation that “is condemned by God’s word”—which includes “nonneutral work”—he will be disfellowshipped if he does not change his occupation. And there is no mention of disassociation. However, according to the book “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock” (1991), a person who was engaged in nonneutral work would not be disfellowshipped but would be viewed as one who voluntarily had disassociated himself from the congregation.
It is the elders who will decide whether the occupation of a brother promotes nonneutral work, whereas his own conscience is not taken into account. Because the views of the elders, on the basis of signals from the Governing Body, have become stricter and stricter, the brother has no “legal rights.”
The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, shows correctly that the words “never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him,” in 2 John 10, according to the context, only refer to antichrists and not to disfellowshipped and disassociated persons. But the article claims that the Bible shows that the words have a wider application. I show that this claim is wrong.
The conclusion is that the claim that violating one’s neutrality indicates that the person has voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation is wrong. The word “disassociated” is, in reality, a euphemism for disfellowshipping. A Witness who supports political or military activities, and by this violates his neutrality, will be kicked out of the congregation. The reason why “disassociation” is used rather than “disfellowshipping”, is evidently to avoid problems with the governments.
Because Jehovah’s Witnesses support the Kingdom of God, they cannot at the same time support political movements in this world. But what happens if a Witness accepts a political position or votes for a political candidate? The book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” says:
18.3 (4): Taking a Course That Violates Christian Neutrality: (Isa. 2:4; John 15:17-19: lvs pp. 60-63, 244) If he joins a nonneutral organization, he has disassociated himself. If his employment makes him a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities, he should generally be allowed six months to make an adjustment. If he does not, he has disassociated himself.—See lvs pp. 204-206.
18:4: Since disassociation is an action taken by the publisher rather than the committee, there is no arrangement for an appeal. Therefore, the announcement of disassociation can be made at the next midweek meeting without waiting seven days.
19:1: A disfellowshipped person or one who has disassociated himself from the congregation may be reinstated when he gives clear evidence for repentance and over a reasonable period of time demonstrates that he has abandoned his sinful course.
The letters lvs refer to the book How to Remain in God’s Love. This book discusses neutrality. But it does not define disassociation. I will now look at the different sides of disassociation in connection with neutrality violation.
NEUTRALITY VIOLATION BEFORE THE TERM “DISASSOCIATION’ WAS COINED
The first time the term “disassociation” was discussed, according to the Watchtower Online Library, was in The Watchtower of February 15, 1972, page 123. What happened to persons who violated their neutrality before that time? The book Questions in connection with the service of the Kingdom (1961), page 61, says:
If a dedicated Christian accepts a political position or votes for political candidates, can he then continue to be a member of the congregation?
It is obvious that one cannot serve two lords, and a person who is voted in to a political position, will choose to walk in the ways of this world, and he cannot be viewed as one who belongs to the congregation. (Matthew 6:24) The congregation may be informed that his publisher card is removed from the card file of active publishers.
A person who voluntarily votes for a politician also takes part in the pursuits of this world. He returns to the world in order to be engaged in the pursuits of the world, and he therefore separates himself from the new world society. His card should be removed from the card file of active publishers. If he regrets his course and shows that he understands the right view of a Christian to the pursuits of the world, he may write a letter where he asks to be viewed as a publisher again.
The main point in the quotation above is that to take a political stance will compromise a person’s loyalty to God’s government, his heavenly Kingdom. This means that a person who violates his neutrality cannot at the same time be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The viewpoint of the book is that by violating his neutrality, the person has chosen to leave the Christian congregation and become part of the world again.
The Witnesses preach the good news, and every month they make a report of their preaching. This report is written on a card with the publisher’s name and is put in the congregation file. By accepting the report and keeping a person’s card on file, the congregation recognizes this person as a Witness and as a representative of the congregation in preaching to others.
In order to show that the person who has violated his neutrality is no longer recognized as a member or representative of the congregation, the person’s card is removed from the file, and the congregation is notified of this. It should be noted that the person is not disfellowshipped, but is still no longer considered a part of the congregation. This is made clear by the fact that if he changes his mind and wants to come back to the congregation, procedure requires that he writes a letter requesting reinstatement in the same manner a disfellowshipped person seeking reinstatement would.
What would happen if the person took a political stance while wanting to remain a member of the congregation? He could not do both, he would have to choose one or the other. And if he chose politics, he would not be allowed to remain a member of the congregation. But he would not be disfellowshipped.
How is a person who has violated his neutrality treated by the congregation members? In my 60 years as a Witness, I have never heard of any instance of such a neutrality violation. And I am not aware of any cases where such a person was shunned. This means that the view in 1961 was that a person who violated his neutrality had voluntarily left the congregation and was no longer a part of it. But the person was not treated as a disfellowshipped person.
| A person who violated his neutrality prior to 1972 was no longer considered a part of the congregation. But he was not shunned like a disfellowshipped person. |
A DISASSOCIATED PERSON SHOULD BE VIEWED AND TREATED LIKE ONE WHO IS DISFELLOWSHIPPED
As mentioned, the first reference in the Watchtower literature that I was able to find with the word “disassociate” was in The Watchtower of February 15, 1972, pages 123, 124:
Jehovah’s allowing the individual to take whatever course he chooses is actually part of the test of integrity. The person has his freedom of will. If he takes a course violating his Christian neutrality, he is denying God as his Master, and he is walking out on God and his congregation. He is certainly not leading a dedicated life. The congregation is not the one that publicly disfellowshiped him. He takes himself out, dissociates himself. He was once saved from this “crooked generation,” but now he prefers to go back with it, doing as it does.
The article shows that a person who disassociates himself must repent of his wayward course if he or she wants to become a part of the congregation again. But it does not say how a person who disassociates himself from the congregation should be treated. However, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 23, says that disassociated persons should be viewed and treated like those who have been disfellowshipped (first quotation below). This was reiterated in The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 27 (middle quotation), and it is also stated in the book Organized to do Jehovah’s will(2005), page 154 (third quotation below):
6 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.
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, khaiʹro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” —2 John 9-11…
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. (the author’s italics)
3 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.
A disassociated person is viewed as an enemy of God’s people. The Watchtower of July 15, 1986, pages 30, 31, discusses persons who have disassociated themselves and says:
He may even have renounced his former faith formally, such as by a letter. Of course, the congregation would have accepted his decision to disassociate himself. In contrast, John’s words indicate that some went further than spiritual weakness and inactivity; they actually repudiated God’s congregation. Someone may have come out openly in opposition to God’s people, declaring that he no longer wanted to be in the congregation.
Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’ (1 John 2:18, 19)”
The antichrists were enemies of the Christians, and because those who resigned from the Christian congregation were a part of “antichrist,” they were in open opposition to the Christians and were their enemies. Therefore, as the three first quotations show, a disassociated person is to be viewed and treated in the same way as one who is disfellowshipped. This means that such a person should be shunned; no one should greet him or speak with him, and he should be treated as if he did not exist. As I will show below, the only difference between disassociation and disfellowshipping is a cosmetic facade.
DISASSOCIATING IS A EUPHEMISM FOR DISFELLOWSHIPPING
Disfellowshipping means that three elders in the congregation decide that a person should be kicked out of the congregation. The congregation is notified that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In most cases, this is against the will of the person who is being kicked out. I will now compare disassociation, which is claimed to be in accordance with the will of the disassociated one, and disfellowshipping, which is unquestionably against the will of the one being disfellowshipped.
Disassociation can result from a Witness choosing to participate in nonneutral activities, including nonneutral employment. I will first consider the issue of nonneutral work by referring to the article “Doing Work with a Good Conscience before God and Men” in the Kingdom Ministry of September 1976. This article does not discuss nonneutral work specifically, but it is implied. And the principles discussed can also be applied to nonneutral work. On page 1, a basic question is posed:
The principal question is: “Does the work or activity to be performed in itself constitute an act condemned by God’s Word? Or, if it does not, is it nevertheless so directly linked to such condemned practices that it would make those doing such work actual accomplices or promoters of the wrong practice?” In such cases, Christian conscience should surely cause them to reject such employment. (the author’s italics)
The question is important, and the conclusion that if a work ‘accomplices or promotes a wrong practice,’ the Christian should reject such employment, is of course, fine. The article points out that the choice of employment is a personal one based on the conscience of the person. But what if the conscience of a brother allows him to have particular employment, but the elders in the congregation think that his choice of employment is wrong, and therefore, overrule his conscience? On page 3, we read:
The congregation’s responsibility
Where a brother engages in employment that clearly violates God’s law, the congregation and its elders rightly become concerned on the matter. Where work or a product thereof is condemned in the Scriptures, or is such as to make one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing, the elders should first endeavor to help the person see the wrongness of his course. In such cases where the connection is definite and evident, it should be possible to make what the Bible says clear to him and enable him to see why it does indeed apply to him. It may however, take a number of discussions, perhaps over a period of some weeks, to help him see the point and give prayerful consideration to what has been brought to his attention. If it is definitely established that his employment violates Christian principles and he, nevertheless, insists on continuing in it, he may be disfellowshiped from the congregation.
The quotation refers to work that makes “one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing,” and then it speaks of a situation “where the connection is definite and evident.” So the question naturally arises: How can we know that “the connection is definite and evident”? Who decides that? The article shows that the decision is made by the elders in the congregation, and they will help the brother to accept their interpretation of the situation. If the brother cannot accept that his work makes him an accomplice or promoter of wrongdoing, the brother will be disfellowshipped.
The article does not define what kind of work is included in the terms “condemned in the Scriptures” and “wrongdoing.” But because nonneutral work is supposed to be condemned by the Scriptures, this kind of work must be included in the terms. This means that a person who in 1976 was guilty of nonneutral work would be disfellowshipped—he had not disassociated himself from the congregation.
| A Witness who in 1976 was engaged in nonneutral work and refused to change his occupation would be disfellowshipped. He would not have been viewed as one who had voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation. |
I will now apply the principles and the conclusions of the article to nonneutral work that is mentioned in the Shepherd book (2019) 18.3 (4):
If his employment makes him a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities, he should generally be allowed six months to make an adjustment. If he does not, he has disassociated himself.
What kind of employment makes a person “a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities?” The statement is carefully worded to omit any specific kinds of employment in order to avoid problems with the authorities. However, the book How to Remain in God’s Love (2008), pages 60-63, shows that nonneutral activities include activities that may give support to political or military entities.
We may consider the following example: A brother works at a plant that produces different engine parts. The products are sold to car manufacturers, boat manufacturers, and to manufacturers of other products. The plant also has a contract with the armed forces to deliver engine parts for their military vehicles. Even though deliveries to the different branches of the armed forces only represents a small part of the production, the elders of his congregation decide that the brother is an “accomplice of nonneutral activities.” Therefore, they discuss the situation with him, and he is given an ultimatum: “You have six months to find a new job. If you, after that time, continue in your old job, this will be evidence that you have voluntarily disassociated yourself from the congregation because you do not want to be a Witness any longer.”
Let us stop for a moment and carefully think about what actually happened here. Is not the whole situation self-contradictory? For instance, what happens if the brother says: “I do not agree with you that my job constitutes nonneutral activities. The production of engine parts for military vehicles is just a small part of the total production. So, I am not supporting the armed forces through my job any more than a brother who works in a supermarket that sells tobacco and blood pudding would be guilty of promoting those things. Therefore, I will continue in my job, and I will continue as a member of the congregation.” After six months, the brother will not leave the congregation voluntarily, but he will be kicked out of the congregation on the pretext that he has voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation. Under no circumstances will the brother be allowed to remain a part of the congregation when the elders have decided that his work makes him an accomplice in nonneutral activities. And so here is the oxymoronic contradiction:
Voluntarily <—>to be kicked out of the congregation
| The book Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, page 140, shows that a Witness who in 1991 was engaged in a nonneutral work and refused to change his occupation would not be disfellowshipped. But he would be viewed as one who had voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation. |
I will now show that there is no difference between disfellowshipping and disassociation in substance, only in name. Table 1.1 compares the situation of disfellowshipped persons with that of disassociated ones.
Table 1.1 A comparison with a disfellowshipped and a disassociated person
| Disfellowshipped persons | Disassociated persons | |
| 1 | A committee of three makes the decision | A committee of three makes the decision |
| 2 | The person is not allowed to remain a Witness if he wants to do that | The person is not allowed to remain a Witness if he wants to do that |
| 3 | The person is shunned | The person is shunned |
| 4 | Repentance to be reinstated | Repentance to be reinstated |
| 5 | Written application to be reinstated | Written application to be reinstated |
As the table shows, the situation of a disfellowshipped person and a disassociated person is almost identical. The only difference is point 1, and I will discuss this difference. The book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” 18.1 says:
Whereas disfellowshipping is an action taken by a judicial committee against an unrepentant wrongdoer, disassociation is an action taken by the baptized member of the congregation who no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 John 2:19: od pp 142, 143). In cases of disassociation, the body of elders should appoint a committee (not judicial) of three elders to consider the facts.
What the quotation says is correct if, and only if, a person writes a letter saying that he does not want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses anymore. But it is not correct in other situations, such as the one described above, where the elders have decided that the occupation of a brother makes him a “clear accomplice in nonneutral activities.” The formulation that if a brother has not changed his occupation after six months, he has voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation is self-contradictory. The real situation is that he will be kicked out of the congregation against his will.
The difference between disfellowshipping and disassociation described in the Shepherd book is just cosmetic. There is absolutely no substantive difference between a committee of three elders with the designation “judicial committee,” and a committee of three elders, without this designation, when the ruling of both committees is exactly the same—the brother or sister is kicked out of the congregation and subsequently shunned. If a judicial committee of three elders kicks a brother out of the congregation, it is labeled a disfellowshipping; if a non-judicial committee of three elders kicks a brother out, it is designated “disassociation”. Therefore, disassociation is, to all intents and purposes, exactly the same thing as being disfellowshipped. Despite its cosmetic label, persons who are “disassociated” are kicked out of the congregation against their will and subsequently treated as if they did not exist, exactly as done to disfellowshipped ones.
| The book Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock (1991), page 102, confirms that disassociation is exactly the same as disfellowshipping: “Those who disassociate themselves should be viewed and treated in the same way as disfellowshipped persons.” |
Please consider the following situation: A brother says: “Before 1996, civil service as a substitute for military service was viewed as a “nonneutral activity.” In that year, it was changed and no longer viewed as nonneutral activity, which means that Jehovah’s Witnesses now accept that the government has the right to put the Witnesses under compulsory service.[1] In a similar way, I do not view voting for a political candidate as a nonneutral activity. My voting merely reflects my obedience to the higher authorities (Romans 13:1) in this present system of things. But I continue to wait for God’s kingdom to come and remove all the present governments, just like the rest of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Therefore, I have no desire to leave my fellow brothers and sisters, I want to continue to be a member of my congregation.”
What would the three elders who were appointed to consider the case do? Would they accept the argument of the brother? No, they would kick him out of the congregation and would not allow him to remain a member. But the problem for them is that the argument of the brother is logical: Voting for a political candidate violates the position of being an ambassador. But to accept that the government has the right to impose compulsory service on the Witnesses is also a position that violates the position as ambassador. The Governing Body accepts this today, but they did not do that before the year 1996. When the Governing Body accepts compulsory service, they should also accept voting, is the argument of the brother.
Supporting the view that “disassociation” is a euphemism for disfellowshipping are the following situations:
The Shepherd book 18.1, 3, says:
Whereas disfellowshipping is an action taken by a judicial committee against an unrepentant wrongdoer, disassociation is an action taken by a baptized member of the congregation who no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s witnesses… (italics mine)
Actions that may indicate disassociation include the following:
- Making Known a Firm Decision to Be Known No Longer as One of Jehovah’s witnesses.
- Joining Another Religious Organization and Making Known His Intention to Remain With It.
- Willingly and Unrepentantly Accepting Blood.
- Taking a Course That Violates Christian Neutrality.
I will show that the words “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” fit point (1) but do not fit points (3) and (4), and only partially fit point (2).
I start with point (2). A letter from the Norwegian branch office of June 25, 1986, said:
The case of a person who joins a false religious organization has until now been considered by a judicial committee with a possible disfellowshipping as the result. However, one has concluded that it would be more proper to view one who joins a false religious organization as one whose actions show that he has disassociated himself from the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is also the way that we view one who joins a worldly organization with a purpose that contradicts the Bible and which will experience Jehovah’s judgment. (italics mine)
I will now compare some words from the two last quotations:
| The Shepherd book: | disassociation is an action taken by a baptized member of the congregation who no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. |
| The letter. From the branch office: | whose actions show that he has disassociated himself from the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. |
Do you see the difference between the words of the Shepherd book and the words of the letter? The words “no longer desires” refer to the view of the brother. But the words, “whose actions show” refer to the view of the elders. The reality is that the words “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” are used as a pretext for deflecting what amounts to disfellowshipping actions initiated by the elders and not at the behest of the Witness. But this action is euphemistically named “disassociation” and not “disfellowshipping.” I will elucidate this in what follows.
If a person writes a letter saying that he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as point (1) mentions, this is a clear example of voluntarily disassociating himself from the congregation. This letter shows explicitly that the person “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” as the Shepherd book says.
However, point (2) with the words, “joining another religious organization and making known his intention to remain with it” may or may not indicate that a person “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” For example, several Christian organizations are giving humanitarian aid in different countries. One of them is the Norwegian Church Aid (Kirkens Nødhjelp). Suppose now that a person in a country in Africa who is a Witness starts to work for Norwegian Church Aid in order to give humanitarian aid to persons in need, he even gets his salary from that religious organization. However, if he intends to continue his work, he will be viewed as one who “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” and who has disassociated himself from the congregation.
But is this view correct? For a Witness to work for a religious organization would be an exceptional situation indeed. But it could be that special circumstances have led him to his choice. So, he wants to continue to be a Witness while continuing his humanitarian work for a religious organization.[1]
[1]. Chapter 5 in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition, has a discussion of all the 11 disfellowshipping offenses that are mentioned in the Bible and the 37 disfellowshipping offenses that have been invented and introduced by the members of the Governing Body. On my webpage, www.mybelovedreligion.no, each of the mentioned 48 disfellowshipping offenses are discussed in detail
The words “willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood,” as mentioned in point (3), is impossible to align with the words “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” The action of “joining a religious organization” (point 2) would, before 1986, be viewed as a disfellowshipping offense, but after that year, it was viewed as voluntary disassociation. In a similar way, “willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood” was in the 20th century viewed as a disfellowshipping offense. But in the 21st century, it is viewed as voluntary disassociation.[4] When an action at one time was defined as a disfellowshipping offense but then later redefined as voluntary disassociation, this proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that disfellowshipping and disassociation are one and the same thing. The difference is one of name and not of substance. I will further illustrate that.
My experience during my 27 years as a member of the Hospital Liaison Committee is that a Witness accepting blood almost never happens, even in the face of threats of death if blood is not administered. But please consider the following situation:
A brother says to the elders: “I agree that we must abstain from blood, that is, the red fluid that is in the veins of men and animals. I agree that whether or not to accept small fractions of blood is a matter of conscience. However, which fractions this relates to is not mentioned in the Bible. Only small amounts of platelets and white cells are found in the bloodstream in our veins, so I believe that accepting these factors is a matter of conscience as well. I was hospitalized last week, and with a good conscience, I accepted infusions of platelets that I needed.”
Everything that the brother says is correct, and that Witnesses can accept albumin and coagulation factors but not platelets and white cells is something that the Governing Body has decided. That the Governing Body has forbidden the use of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma can from one point of view seem to be logical, because these are the main components of blood. But the Hebrew word dam and the Greek word haima only refer to the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals. Therefore, each person must have the right to decide whether to accept any of these components.
Because the Bible does not say anything about platelets and white cells, the brother has the right to have his own view. But what will happen with this “unrepentant” brother for taking the platelet infusion that his conscience allowed him to accept? He will be kicked out of the congregation on the pretext that he “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Why did the members of the Governing Body change their view regarding blood transfusion, from being a disfellowshipping offense to becoming evidence of voluntary disassociation from the congregation? Evidently, to “save face.” If a brother accepts platelets, or white cells, or full blood, and defends this, disfellowshipping that person would create a very bad name for Jehovah’s Witnesses. It could then be said that one member of Jehovah’s Witnesses was disfellowshipped because he accepted the medical treatment that saved his life. But if the view is that by accepting blood or particular blood components, and defending it, the person shows by his actions that he voluntarily disassociates himself from the congregation because he “no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” that would be more palatable for onlookers.
The situation is similar when it comes to supporting a politician or a military organization. Disfellowshipping a person for this violation of his neutrality could cause problems with the government. But the view that he has voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation heads off a lot of problems.
[1]. For details, see the articles “We cannot trust the views and decisions of the Governing Body” and “The implementation of the elder arrangement was a blessing — the creation of the Governing Body has been a disaster” in the category “The Governing Body.”
[2]. The article “Introduction to disfellowshipping offenses” in the category “Disfellowshipping” has a table with the 43 disfellowshipping offenses (including the four disassociating offenses) listed in “Shepherd The flock Of God”. Thirty-two of these are made up and invented by the GB, and 11 are based on the Bible. Among these 11 are “Join another religious organization.” The reason for its inclusion is that other religious organizations are spreading false teachings, and the Bible shows that this is a disfellowshipping offense. However, to have a job that is related to a religious organization, which is the example that is used above, is not the same as joining this religious organization.
[3]. An article on this website is discussing blood transfusion as a disfellowshipping offense that is made-up and invented by the Governing Body without any basis in the Bible. But here, I will make some comments on disassociation.
[4]. An undated list from the branch office of disfellowshipping offenses, probably from before the year 2000, lists “blood, misuse of” as a disfellowshipping offense. But a similar list dated May 2005 lists “Blood, misuse of, or defending use of” as disassociation.
THE LEGAL BIBLICAL ASPECT OF DISASSOCIATION
There is also a legal biblical aspect of this situation. In the English legal system, there are two synonymous concepts, namely, “due process of law” and “legal security.” The meaning of both is that a person who is accused of something must have his or her case reviewed by competent people who take the rights of the person, according to the law, into consideration. In other words, the accused persons should have every opportunity to defend themselves, and the proceedings in court should follow the law in every detail.
In the Christian congregation, the laws and principles of the Bible are used just as the laws of a country are used in a court case. The important question is: Do the judicial committees follow the principle of “due process of law,” where “law” refers to the laws and principles of the Bible? And does the Witness who is accused of wrongdoing have “legal security” where “legal” also refers to the laws and principles of the Bible? In this situation, the answer is a resounding No!
The reason for this answer is that the outcome of the situation depends on the subjective viewpoints of the elders, and the conscience of the brother does not matter. As an example, the arbitrary decision of the elders in the case of the brother who worked in a plant producing parts of cars is based on a numbers game. Is the brother an accomplice in nonneutral activities if the production to the military is 1% of the total production of the plant? How great a percentage of the production must go to the military to make the brother an accomplice of nonneutral work? Is it 5%, 10% or 20%? The elders will decide, ironically, based on their own consciences.
To illustrate the situation, I will refer to two decisions made by the Governing Body that are referred to by Raymond Franz in his book Crisis of Conscience, page 114:
Consider this case that came up for discussion and decision by the Governing Body. One of Jehovah’s Witnesses, driving a truck for the Coca-Cola Company, had as his route a large military base where numerous deliveries were made. The question: Could he do this and remain a member in good standing or is this a disfellowshipping offense? (The crucial factor here being that military property and personnel were involved.)
Again, what scriptures discuss such matters—in a way that can be clearly and reasonably seen, in a way that obviates the need for involved reasonings and interpretations? None were brought forward, yet the majority of the Body decided that this work was not acceptable and that the man would have to obtain another route to remain in good standing. A similar case came up involving a Witness musician who played in a “combo” at an officers’ club on a military base. This, too, was ruled unacceptable by the majority of the Body. The Scriptures being silent, human reasoning supplied the answer.
The elders have the right to make similar arbitrary decisions, and that is why I say that the brothers have no “legal security”: Their consciences do not matter, and the opinions of the elders in all such situations, because of signals from the Governing Body, have become more and more strict, as the excursus below shows.
EXCURSUS: PERSONAL DECISIONS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE BROTHERS TO THE GOVERNING BODY AND THE ELDERSA brother who worked in the Writing Department in the 1980s and who was a part of the inner circle at Brooklyn Bethel recently wrote:
When I became a witness in 1961, there were few rules in addition to the Bible, and the conscience of each brother and sister played an important role. As an example, The Watchtower of February 1, 1954, page 94, discussed gambling:
In 1954, the conscience of the brother was the deciding factor. Today, the consciences of the members of the Governing Body are the deciding factors. Being employed in a gambling enterprise will lead to disfellowshipping, according to “Shepherd The Flock Of God” 12.32. The letter to the Hospital Liaison Committees of June 15, 2018, illustrates that the consciences of the members of the Governing Body are put above the consciences of individual Witnesses. Nurses in hospitals work to take care of the patients, and they have a number of tasks to do. Occasionally, a Witness nurse may be asked to hang up a bag with blood above the patient for a blood transfusion. Because this is a very small part of her job, for more than 70 years, the guidance has been that the nurse had to decide if she would do this task or not on the basis of her conscience. And my experience is that most nurses would accept this task. But the mentioned letter changed the situation:
This letter shows that the members of the Governing Body have all power, and they think they can make decisions that transcend the consciences of the Witnesses. This new policy may also throw some light on the issue of being an accomplice in nonneutral activities. It illustrates the tendency that we have seen for several years for interpretations of what is right and wrong, in grey areas, to be more and more restrictive. As one of the brothers of the inner circle at Bethel wrote: the organization “is totally obsessed with power, authority, and control.” This new spirit will also be influencing the elders when they take it upon themselves to decide, in behalf of another Christian, that a certain occupation supports nonneutral activities, and they give the brother six months to change his occupation, or be kicked out of the congregation.
|
[1]. This new policy was also communicated to the congregation members.
THE TREATMENT OF DISASSOCIATED PERSONS
The book for elders “Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock” (1991), page 102, says:
Those that disassociate themselves should be viewed and be treated the same as disfellowshipped persons.
What does that mean? The Watchtower April 15, 1988, page 27, says:
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, khaiʹro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 9-11. …
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. (the author’s italics)
The quotation from 2 John 9-11 —“Never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him”— seemingly gives the reader a strong biblical basis for shunning disfellowshipped and disassociated persons. But the fact is that the readers are misled because the quotation is taken out of context. This is seen in The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, page 30:
Did 2 John 10, which says not to receive into one’s home or to greet certain ones, refer only to those who had promoted false doctrine?
In context this counsel concerned the “many deceivers” who had gone forth, “persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7) The apostle John offered directions on how Christians back there should treat one who denied that Jesus had existed or that he was the Christ and Ransomer. John directed: “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 10, 11) But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application.
The answer to the question in the heading is correct. According to the context, the reference is only to the antichrists who deny “Jesus as coming in the flesh.” But what about the last clause in the quotation. “But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application.”? This clause represents a technique that we sometimes see in the Watchtower literature: The interpretation of the Governing Body is smuggled into the discussion as the meaning of the text of the Bible. It is absolutely clear that when the context shows that those who should not be received into the homes or be greeted were the antichrists who rejected “Jesus as coming in the flesh,” these words cannot be applied to anyone else. That is a basic principle of all textual interpretation!
Let us then look at how the author of the article argues to show a “wider application.” He refers to the definition of an apostate in the lexicon Aid to Bible Understanding, and then he writes:
A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God’s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. (Italics mine)
These words are interesting because they definitely show that the Bible does not give 2 John 10, 11 “a wider application.” But the wider application is given by the Governing Body through the author of the article—members of the GB approve every article in The Watchtower. The argument is that persons who have disassociated themselves from the congregation have matched the description of apostates in the Aid book. And since disassociated ones are apostates, in the same way the antichrists are apostates, the words relating to the antichrists—‘not receiving them into the homes and not greeting them’—can be applied with equal force to those who have disassociated themselves from the congregation. So reasoned the Governing Body in the article quoted above.
The introductory course for students at the University of Oslo deals with the Philosophy of Science. The students learn basic logic and which arguments are correct and valid and which are incorrect and invalid. This can be illustrated by syllogisms, some being valid and others invalid. Below I use four syllogisms to illustrate the fallacy of the argument in The Watchtower.
(1) — invalid
All lions are predators
Elsa is a predator
= Elsa is a lion
(2) — valid
All lions are predators
Elsa is a lion
= Elsa is a predator
(3) — invalid
All antichrists in 2 John 10, 11 are apostates
Disassociated persons are apostates
= Disassociated persons are antichrists
(4)— valid
All antichrists in 2 John 10, 11 are apostates
Disassociated persons are antichrists
= Disassociated persons are apostates
Syllogism (1) and (3) are invalid, but the logic in (2) and (4) are valid, and the syllogism illustrating the arguments in The Watchtower is (3), which is invalid. Even the premise of the arguments in the article (syllogism 3) can be questioned. In the category “Shunning not based on the Bible” on this website, there are four articles showing that shunning disfellowshipped persons is not based on the Bible, and in fact, it contradicts the Bible. One of the articles is a very detailed analysis of 2 John 10, 11. It shows that John’s letters do not say that the antichrists were members of the Christian congregations who became apostates. The words in 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us,” may refer to groups, such as the Pre-Gnostics, who accepted a part of Christian doctrines but rejected another part. And the words “went out from us” may refer to these groups, or they can even refer to doctrines of these groups, that went out from the Christian doctrines..
The conclusion to this section is that the shunning of disassociated persons has no basis in the Bible, and in fact, violates Bible principles.
POLITICS, MILITARY SERVICE, AND THE BIBLE
One of the basic principles that I learned when I became a witness 62 years ago was that the Bible is our sole basis for belief, and only when the Bible clearly expresses something can we follow it. Today the Governing Body has taken the place of the Bible, and only when the members of the Governing Body say or write something can we believe it and follow it.
On the basis of the Bible as the sole authority, how should we view the politics and the armed forces of the nations of the world? We should remember that voting for a political candidate or doing military service is not mentioned in the Bible as disfellowshipping offenses, and the term “disassociation” is made up and invented by the Governing Body and has nothing to do with the Bible. The only disfellowshipping offense that is relevant in this connection is manslaughter because the armies of the nations kill human beings when they are at war.
As Christians, we have dedicated our lives to Jehovah, and we serve his Son, who is king in the heavenly Kingdom. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:20 (NWT13):
Therefore, we are ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us. As substitutes of Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
These words were written to anointed Christians in the first century CE. Because Christians who are not anointed cooperate with the anointed ones, they also have the same position as ambassadors. This indicates that we must refrain from the things that ambassadors cannot do, which means that we cannot be a part of political or military organizations.
THE GOVERNING BODY HAS MADE A TALMUD-LIKE SET OF LAWS AND RULES AS A VIOLATION OF THE BIBLE
I will now return to the quotation of Kingdom Ministry of September 1976:
The principal question is: “Does the work or activity to be performed in itself constitute an act condemned by God’s Word? Or, if it does not, is it nevertheless so directly linked to such condemned practices that it would make those doing such work actual accomplices or promoters of the wrong practice?” In such cases, Christian conscience should surely cause them to reject such employment. (the author’s italics)
There is an important distinction between the words that the author put in italics. The important point is a “work or activity to be performed in itself constitutes an act condemned by God’s Word.” This would, for example, include fighting in a war and killing other people — manslaughter is a biblical disfellowshipping offense. It could also include a situation where a person declared that he was willing to kill someone if he was ordered to do so. This means that being enrolled in the military as a soldier must be said to be “in itself…an act condemned by God’s Word.”
However, it is a big leap from an act that “in itself” is condemned by God’s Word and being “directly linked” to a condemned practice or “being an accomplice or promoter” of a wrong practice. A person who is not enrolled as a soldier but who is transporting ammunition to those who are firing the canons during a war is “directly linked” to a wrong practice. And the same is true with a person who is working with the enrolling of soldiers.
But to conclude that a person who is driving a truck with Coca Cola to a military base as well as to a great number of other customers is “directly linked” to a wrong practice simply is laughable. The same is true with brothers who work in a factory that among many other things sells products to the armed forces. The meaning of being “directly linked” to a wrong practice must be that a person “directly” does something that is wrong, such as killing people. This means that doing different kinds of work for the military must be a matter of the conscience of each Christian.
Supporting this is the fact that as ambassadors Christians are neutral to all nations and organizations in this world. Neutrality means that every organization is treated in the same way. Because neutral Christians must have a secular work, this means that they will treat every individual and every organization in the same neutral way. Claiming that Christians are directly linked to what is wrong if they do secular work for organizations that God will judge, is an argument against the neutrality of the Christians.
But the problem today is that the members of the Governing Body have made a Talmud-like set of rules that also include rules regarding secular work. This is particularly seen in the older book Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence, and in Correspondence Guidelines (2007). There are three basic problems with the laws and rules that the members of the Governing Body have made up and introduced:
First, the only authority for Christians is the Holy Bible with its 66 books. Revelation 22:18, 19 says:
18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll.
These words exclusively refer to the book of Revelation, and they cannot be applied directly to any other book in the Bible or to the Bible as a whole. But the principle behind these words is important: Humans have no right to add anything to the word of God. A worldwide organization must have a leadership, and the leaders must create a number of practical rules that the members must follow, such as meetings and assemblies with their programs, how the preaching of the Kingdom should occur, and a number of other issues.
However, no human being has the right to make rules regarding Christian faith and Christian living. Doing that would be the same as adding something to the Word of God. But the members of the Governing Body have done exactly that; they have created hundreds of rules related to the Christian faith and Christian living, such as rules regarding secular work.
Second, many of the rules are ambiguous, as we see by the words directly linked to such condemned practices” and accomplices or promoters of the wrong practice.” These are ambiguous expressions that can be interpreted in different ways.
Third, some persons have to interpret the ambiguous expressions and enforce the laws and rules given by the Governing Body. And the Governing Body has given this authority to the elders. This means that the elders have been given the authority over life and death because they can, on the basis of their own subjective viewpoints, disfellowship Witnesses whom they conclude have violated the laws and rules given by the Governing Body.
THE CORRECT VIEW OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY THAT HAS BEEN ABANDONED
When we study the history of the Watchtower Society from the days of Russell, during the time of Rutherford and Knorr, we see that the leading brothers, while they tried to follow Bible principles, also made several errors. These brothers were sincere truth-seekers, and their basic principle was sola scriptura (“the Scripture alone”). In contrast with the members of the present Governing Body they deeply respected the Bible, and they did not want to make rules and laws in addition to the Bible. This is seen in a cautious discussion of the use of tobacco in The Watchtower of 1942, pages 205 and 206:
The use of tobacco is extremely filthy, regardless of the form in which it is used…These scriptures [1 Timothy 4:12 and Romans 13:9, 10] bring forcibly to the attention of the Lord’s people that those who are proper representatives of the Lord and the Lord’s organization must be examples to the believers and of the believers; that they must follow a course of action that will work no ill to their neighbor. For these reasons these appointed to represent the Society as special or general publishers or as servants in the various company organizations are required to refrain from the use of tobacco in any form…those who persist in the use of the harmful weed cannot be considered as proper examples in word, in charity, in spirit, in faith, or in purity, and by their course of action the example they are setting forth works ill to their neighbor. They are rebelling against a reasonable requirement of the Lord’s organization…To be sure, the Society has no power or authority or desire to say that a person who wishes to use tobacco may not do so. Nor can it say, “You may not witness for the Kingdom.” But it can say who are its appointed representatives. Each one must decide whether he or she wishes to be in or out of line for privileges of service…those who are appointed as direct representative of the Society in any capacity must refrain from the use of tobacco in all its forms. (italics mine)
Using tobacco is a filthy habit. But the article says that the organization at that time recognized that it had no authority to insist that a person should not use tobacco. The conscience of each person must decide his position. But persons using tobacco could not be appointed as representatives of the Society. Today, persons who use tobacco are disfellowshipped without any basis in the Bible.
The same cautious approach is seen in The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, where the question was whether the selling of Christmas cards and Christmas trees were right:
The Watchtower Society is organized for the purpose of preaching the good news of the Kingdom in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all nations, and it encourages and aids all to have a part in that work, freely advising as to the most effective procedures. As to other forms of activity or work the Society has no specific recommendation to make. To draw up rules for all the possible situations relative to secular work would embark us upon the compilation of a voluminous, a Talmudlike set of regulations, seeking to make all the fine distinctions as to when and when not certain work becomes objectionable. The Lord has not laid that responsibility upon the Society; it is each individual’s responsibility to decide his own case. To illustrate the problem involved, consider the matter of selling Christmas cards or trees. If that is wrong, then what about the butcher that sells a turkey for a Christmas dinner, or the saleslady that sells a sweater to be used as a Christmas present? Where is the line to be drawn? Or, when does work become defense work? You do not have to be working on a tank assembly line to be making items used in warfare…
The Society’s silence on these matters is not to be viewed as giving consent, nor is it to be viewed as a condemnation we do not wish to openly express. It means that we think it is the individual’s responsibility to choose, not ours. It is his conscience that must be at ease for his course, not ours… So let each one accept his own responsibility and answer to his own conscience, not criticizing others or being criticized by them, when individual consciences allow different decisions on the same matter.
Representatives of the Watchtower Society pointed out that they had no special recommendation regarding the kind of secular work Christians should choose. We note that making rules for secular work would require “a Talmud-like set of regulations,” and that is exactly what the members of the Governing Body have made today.
In connection with secular work, the question of whether a Christian could be employed in a gambling enterprise was raised in The Watchtower of February 1, 1954, pages 94:
Gambling appeals to selfishness and weakens moral fiber; it tempts many into habits of cheating and crookedness… Can a Christian be employed in a gambling enterprise that is legally recognized and allowed? He may think that he can do so if he refrains from gambling himself or allowing his spiritual brothers to gamble through his services. One may be able to conscientiously do this, while another would not be able to do so in good conscience. Each one will have to decide individually whether he can or cannot do so conscientiously. (italics mine)
The Watchtower shows that the individual’s conscience is the deciding factor. A brother who was employed in a gambling enterprise could represent the congregation as a preacher. Today, such a brother would be disfellowshipped. The three quotations dealing with the use of tobacco and different kinds of work represent the viewpoints of the Bible. They show that human beings, such as elders, have no right to make rules regarding the Christian faith and Christian living.
The Governing Body was created in 1971, and from the very start, the Body started to violate the Bible by making rules regarding secular work and many other issues, such as disfellowshipping offenses that were not based on the Bible. A detailed discussion of this is found in the article “The implementation of the elder arrangement was a blessing, the creation of the Governing Body has been a disaster” in the category “The Governing Body.”
While the Governing Body from its creation, in a great number of instances violated the Word of God, the members also made a great number of decisions that accorded with the Bible and that advanced the preaching of the Kingdom of God. From the creation of the Governing Body and throughout the 20th century the organization still was theocratic. But in the 21st century, there was an abrupt change, as the words of a brother who worked in the Writing Department in the 1980s and was part of the inner circle at Bethel show:
The organization fundamentally changed after this [the death of the Governing Body member W.L. Barry in 1999]; it became totally obsessed with power, authority, and control.
From the beginning of the 21st century when the hardliner Ted Jaracz became the leading brother of the Governing Body, the organization started to become autocratic and dictatorial.[1] And this is the situation today. The eight members of the Governing Body have unlimited power over the doctrines, the assets, and the money. Everything they do and write is believed to have God’s backing. And anyone who does not accept an interpretation of the Governing Body may be disfellowshipped.
THE WITNESSES AS ACCOMPLICES AND PROMOTERS OF NON-NEUTRAL PRACTICES
I have already shown that a Witness who takes part in an activity that in itself constitutes a violation of Christian neutrality has compromised his or her position as an ambassador for God’s Kingdom, as seen in 2 Corinthians 5:20. This can include participation in wars and killing people, or enrolling as a soldier who will accept an order to kill someone. It can also include accepting a political position.
But that the words of the GB that a person can bedirectly linked to a non-neutral activity, such as doing a secular service for the armed forces or a political organization, is something that has been invented by the Governing Body and has no basis in the Bible. The elders have received power over life and death, and they have the right to throw a Witness out of the congregation if they are of the opinion that his secular work makes him an accomplice of a non-neutral organization. This is a clear violation of the Scriptures and should never occur. But unfortunately, it has occurred in a number of instances and it will continue to occur because the organization is autocratic and the members of the Governing Body exercises a religious dictatorship.
[1]. See the article “The power struggle inside the Governing Body in the 1980s and 1990s” in the category “The Governing Body.”
CONCLUSION
There are four actions that the Shepherd book defines as evidence that a person no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and therefore, has disassociated himself from the congregation. But the definition fits only one of the four, namely, the writing of a letter saying that he or she no longer wants to be a member of the congregation.
Two of the actions viewed today as evidence of disassociation—joining a false religious organization and unrepentantly accepting blood— were previously viewed as disfellowshipping offenses. This shows that disassociation is exactly the same as disfellowshipping. Those who are viewed as having disassociated themselves will under no circumstances be allowed to remain members of the congregation. Therefore, disassociation is not the free-willed decision it is claimed to be; it is really a decision made by the elders to kick a person out of the congregation, in most cases against the will of the person.
This study has discussed the fourth example of the supposed disassociation, that a Witness compromises his or her position as an ambassador for God’s Kingdom by participating in an activity that “in itself” (directly) represents such a compromise. However, I have also shown that the rule of being directly linked to a non-neutral organization or being an accomplice or promoter of such an organization by doing work for this organization is invented by the Governing Body and has no basis in the Bible.
The clearest example that this claim is false is the situation where the elders demand that a brother change his occupation before six months have elapsed because they have decided that his occupation supports nonneutral activities. If the brother disagrees with the elders’ assessment and continues in his occupation, the elders will inform the congregation that the brother has disassociated himself from the congregation and no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But the fact is that he has been kicked out of the congregation against his will as a violation of the Holy Scriptures.
