—REVIEW—
Most of the regime of disfellowshipping among Jehovah’s Witnesses is based on human commandments without any basis in the Bible.
Disfellowshipping offenses
Of the 46 disfellowshipping offenses listed in the Shepherd book, 35 are made up and invented by the GB with no basis in the Bible, and only 11 are based on the Bible. A list of both groups is included. Two disfellowshipping offenses that are not mentioned in the Shepherd book are addressed as well.
What kind of persons deserve to be disfellowshipped?
Paul speaks about disfellowshipping in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6. He does not use verbs to describe disfellowshipping offenses but nouns. Verbs describe actions, and nouns describe characteristics and occupations. The nouns in these chapters show that a person should not be disfellowshipped for what he does but for what he is. Only persons who are permeated by one of the 11 disfellowshipping offenses should be disfellowshipped.
Sixty years ago, The Watchtower expressed this important truth, and it said that only persons who are practicing serious sins and who “are hardened in wrongdoing” should be disfellowshipped. The present GB has rejected this view, and they have gone so far in the opposite direction that their instruction is that the judicial committee must consider if persons who have made even one serious sin should be disfellowshipped.
Judicial committees with three elders
The Bible does not state who should consider a situation of wrongdoing and decide whether a person should be disfellowshipped or not. But two passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures and the pattern of judges in the city gate in Israel show that judicial committees with three members are in harmony with the principles of the Bible.
The rejection of the requirement of two eyewitnesses to prove guilt
The Shepherd book includes the requirement of two eyewitnesses. But this requirement is contradicted in a great number of situations in connection with judicial cases.
—The GB has instructed the elders — contrary to the Bible — to accept strong circumstantial evidence as proof of sexual immorality.
—Elders are authorized to assess that the work of a Witness is wrong, and if he does not change his work within six months, he will be disfellowshipped.
—A great number of the 35 disfellowshipping offenses that are invented by the GB are unclear and ambiguous. Therefore, two eyewitnesses are impossible, and therefore, the gut feelings of the elders will decide.
—The judicial committees in some instances make their decision on an “overall consideration of all parts” of the situation. This also excludes the requirement of two eyewitnesses.
The case of Gry Nygård as an example of the rejection of the requirement of two eyewitnesses
The only witness to what happened at Hotel Plaza is Nygård herself. KS confirmed that Nygård said the same to the judicial committee and the appeal committee that she said to the court. Nevertheless, all four committee members who were witnesses in court contradicted what Nygård said. The section also shows that the way the committees handled this case violates the instructions in the Shepherd book.
Christian freedom versus authoritarian laws
From World War II and for more than 30 years, JW experienced Christian freedom. But in the last part of the 20th century, authoritarian laws were introduced. During the freedom period, the leaders of JW would not make any recommendations regarding secular work and different forms of activity. In the authoritarian period, a great number of human laws that can lead to disfellowshipping have been introduced. Examples discussed are gambling and the use of tobacco.
The bad effect of shunning those who have been disfellowshipped
The Greek word synanamignymi (“to mix together”) is used by the GB to justify shunning. An analysis of that word in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 shows that its meaning is that Witnesses must not fraternize with disfellowshipped persons, but they can still greet them, speak with them, and admonish them.
According to the Shepherd book, disfellowshipping is an act of love, and the purpose is to help the person realize that he must repent and return to God. It is very difficult for some persons, such as those who abuse alcohol and hard drugs, to quit their bad habits without help from others. These persons should be treated with respect, and they should be admonished and given help. All persons who have been disfellowshipped should be admonished and helped. It is God’s kindness that leads to repentance and not the use of force.
THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION
The Governing Body has given the elders power over life and death
An important aspect of the duties of the members of the judicial committee is to consider whether “the degree of regret (repentance) is commensurate with the degree of deviation.” If the elders are convinced that it is, the sin of the person is forgiven, and he will not be disfellowshipped. If they are not convinced, his sin is not forgiven, and he will be disfellowshipped. The authorization of the elders to conduct this level of scrutiny is a human commandment that was invented and introduced by the GB, and it gives them power over life and death. It also contradicts the Bible in several areas:
—Only God can forgive sins.
—The elders are not authorized to assess whether a Christian’s repentance is genuine.
—By scrutinizing the repentance and following up that scrutiny with a decision to forgive or not to forgive, they have put themselves in God’s place in having the power over life and death.
—The GB has introduced the idea of “different degrees of repentance,” which contradicts the Bible.
—By requiring works as proof of repentance, the sinner must, in reality, prove that he is innocent, which is the very opposite of any just judicial system.
The true disfellowshipping regime
The following changes need to be made in connection with disfellowshipping to bring it in line with the Scriptures:
—All the 35+2 disfellowshipping offenses that were invented and introduced by the GB without any support in the Bible are discarded.
—No judicial committee is formed when Witnesses who are guilty of one of the 11 disfellowshipping offenses and have committed such wrongdoing once or a few times.
—A judicial committee is formed only when there are two witnesses that a member of the congregation “practices lawlessness,” and “is hardened in wrongdoing.”
—This means that the committees will not attempt to scrutinize or weigh a person’s level of repentance, but those who are clearly “hardened in wrongdoing” will be disfellowshipped.
—Only God can forgive sins. So, if at the committee meeting, a person who “is hardened in wrongdoing” declares that he has stopped his wrong course, has repented, and prayed to Jehovah for his forgiveness, then the committee will accept that. If this claim of repentance subsequently turns out not to be true, the person will then be disfellowshipped.
The following changes are made in connection with persons who have committed a serious sin once or only a few times:
—Persons who have made a serious sin once or a few times will be treated according to the words in James 5:14-20.
—The elders will help them to understand how they can turn back from their wrong course.
—The elders will pray to Jehovah for these wrongdoers.
—The elders will help them to turn back from their wrongdoing so they can be saved.
—If help is given, but the person does not accept Jehovah’s discipline, and it later turns out that a person “is hardened in wrongdoing” he will then be disfellowshipped.
THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCLUSION
No member of the congregation who has committed sins, regardless of how serious they are or how often they have been committed, but who has changed his course and say that he has asked Jehovah to forgive him, can be disfellowshipped from the congregation.
Most persons who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses react negatively when they are informed that about 70,000 Witnesses are disfellowshipped each year and that those who are disfellowshipped are shunned by all JW, including family and friends, except by the family members who live in the same house.
Because of the negative reaction from persons outside JW, presentations of what disfellowshipping is and what it means are sugar-coated by the organization. We find one example of this on jw.org:
We Show Love by Supporting Jehovah’s Discipline
Disfellowshipping protects the congregation and disciplines unrepentant wrongdoers. (1Co 5:6, 11) When we support such discipline from Jehovah, we show love. How can this be true when disfellowshipping causes emotional pain to all involved, including close relatives and the judicial committee?
Above all, we show love for Jehovah’s reputation and his standard of holiness. (1Pe 1:14-16) We also show love for the person who was disfellowshipped. Strong discipline, though painful, can yield “the peaceable fruit of righteousness.” (Heb 12:5, 6, 11) We interfere with Jehovah’s discipline if we associate with a disfellowshipped person or with one who has disassociated himself. Remember, Jehovah disciplines his people “to the proper degree.” (Jer 30:11) As we support Jehovah’s discipline and maintain our spiritual routine, we keep hoping for the person to return to our merciful Father.—Isa 1:16-18;55:7.[1]
The main point of the quotation above is that disfellowshipping is an expression of love, and expressing love is of course an important Christian characteristic. An entry on jw.org. explains this in the following way:
How can it be said that disfellowshipping is a loving provision when it causes so much pain?
Disfellowshipping shows love for . . .
- Jehovah by honoring his holy name.—1Pe 1:15, 16
- the congregation by protecting it from corrupting influences.—1Co 5:6
- the wrongdoer by helping him come to his senses.—Heb 12:11
In the first quotation, Jehovah’s discipline is mentioned three times, and this will be the main focus of the discussion that follows. Jehovah does not communicate directly with humans on the earth today. But he has given the Holy Bible to his servants on earth. If the regime of disfellowshipping among JW represents “Jehovah’s discipline,” every side of it must be clearly expressed in the Bible. This means that 1) all the disfellowshipping offenses must be written in the Bible, 2) the way the elders in the congregation handle judicial cases must be based on Bible principles, and 3) the way disfellowshipped persons are treated must be written in the Bible.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:13, “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” These words show that disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation is a part of Jehovah’s discipline. While the Bible shows that persons who are permeated by one of the 11 disfellowshipping offenses must be thrown out of the congregation, the Bible does not show who will make the decision of disfellowshipping and how the process that leads to disfellowshipping should occur.
This means that those who are taking the lead in the congregations and in the organization must determine and decide the nature of the process of administering the disfellowshipping and who will make the decision to disfellowship. This is necessary because the Christian Greek Scriptures do not give clear rules. But it is very important that the mentioned decisions are based on the principles of the Bible. Unfortunately, only a small part of the procedures that lead to disfellowshipping is based on the Bible.
The issues that will be discussed are:
- Which actions can lead to disfellowshipping according to Jehovah’s Word?
- What kind of persons deserve to be disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation?
- Is the system of judicial committees with three members based on the principles of the Bible?
- The rejection of two or three witnesses to establish proof of wrongdoing.
- The case of Gry Nygård illustrates the rejection of two or three witnesses.
- Christian freedom versus authoritarian law.
- The shunning of disfellowshipped persons has no Bible basis.
- The GB has given the elders the power over life and death.
- The true disfellowshipping regime.
The rules and principles of Jehovah’s discipline will be scrutinized and applied.
[1]. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/202020444.
THE ACTIONS CAN LEAD TO DISFELLOWSHIPPING ACCORDING TO JEHOVAH’S WORD
Jesus Christ said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17), and “yet the scripture cannot be nullified” (John 10:35). And Paul wrote, “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness.” For about 130 years from 1880, the Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses have used these scriptures to express their belief that the whole Christian faith is found in the Bible, and no human being has the right to add anything to the text of the Bible and claim that this is a part of the Christian faith. After 2010, the new view that the Bible is not fully inspired was developed by the members of the GB.[1]
Because the true Christian religion is spread all over the earth, and it is organized to preach the good news of the Kingdom, some Christians must take the lead in the organization. And rules must be made by those who are taking the lead, so the organization can function in a smooth way. However, Peter said regarding the elders who were taking the lead.
2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock.
These words show that the elders should not be a kind of government, lording it over their fellow Christians, but they should become examples for everyone. This means that rules that are made must relate to organization matters and must not interfere with the Christian faith and Christian lives of the members of the congregations. On this background, it is obvious that Christians who are taking the lead in the worldwide preaching work have no right to make their own rules regarding who are allowed to become members of the Christian congregations and who are not allowed to become and remain members. Such rules are found in the Bible and nowhere else!
But this is exactly what the Governing Body has done in the 21st century. Eleven different disfellowshipping offenses are found in the Bible. But the GB has made up and invented 37 other disfellowshipping offenses that have no basis in the Bible.[2] This means that three-fourths of the offenses for which a Witness can be disfellowshipped from the congregation are human commandments. So the sugar-coating that we see in the first quotation in this article in connection with what is called “Jehovah’s discipline” is not Jehovah’s discipline at all. It is human discipline, the discipline of the members of the GB!
Table 1.1 shows the eleven disfellowshipping offenses that are based on the Bible, and table 1.2 shows the 35 disfellowshipping offenses in the Shepherd book that are not based on the Bible.
Table 1.1 List of the eleven disfellowshipping offenses in the NT
pornos | A man or woman who practices sexual immorality. (1 Cor. 6:9) |
eidōlolatrēs | One who takes part in idol worship. (1 Cor. 6:9) |
kleptēs | A thief. (1 Cor. 6:10) |
pleonektēs | An Exploiter (Wrongly written in the Shepherd book as “Greed,” 1 Cor. 6:10) |
methysos | A drunkard (wine) (1 Cor. 6:10) |
loidoros | A reviler, an abusive person. (1 Cor. 6:10) |
harpax | A rapacious person, a robber. (1 Cor. 6:10) |
anatrepō | Spreading false teachings (2 Tim. 2:18; 1 Tim 1:20) |
hairesis | Making a sect (Titus 3:10) |
planos | Joining another religious organizations (2 John 7, 10) |
sfazō | Mansalughter — murder (1 John 3:12) |
Table 1.2 List of the thirty-five disfellowshipping offenses that are not based on the Bible
SEXUAL IMMORALITY | |
1 | Strong circumstantial evidence of porneia |
2 | Adulterous marriage. |
3 | Child abuse. |
GROSS UNCLEANNESS/UNCLEANNESS WITH GREED | |
4 | Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts. |
5 | Immoral conversations over the telephone or the Internet. |
6 | Viewing abhorrent forms of pornography. |
7 | Misuse of tobacco. |
8 | Use of marijuana, betel nut. |
9 | Abuse of medical, illicit, or addictive drugs. |
10 | Extreme physical uncleanness. |
11 | Oral or anal copulation inside marriage. |
BRAZEN CONDUCT | |
12 | Unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated individuals. |
13 | Dating, though not Scripturally free to remarry. |
14 | Brazen conduct in different situations. |
INDEPENDENT ACTIONS | |
15 | Gluttony. |
16 | Bloodguilt. |
17 | Deliberate, malicious lying; bearing false witness. |
18 | Fraud. |
19 | Slander. |
20 | Obscene speech. |
21 | Gambling. |
22 | Greed. |
23 | Bride price, high. |
24 | Refusal to provide for the family. |
25 | Fits of anger. |
26 | Professional boxing. |
27 | Violence, domestic violence. |
APOSTASY | |
28 | Celebrating false religious holidays. |
29 | Participation in interfaith activities. |
30 | Causing divisions of any kind. |
31 | Employment promoting false religion. |
32 | Spiritism. |
DISASSOCIATION | |
33 | Leave JW. |
34 | Accepting blood transfusion. |
35 | Violating Christian neutrality. |
The members of the Governing Body have given themselves dictatorial power, and they claim that all they say, write, and do comes from Jehovah. The 37 disfellowshipping offenses that they have made up and invented show that this is not correct. A detailed analysis of each of the 46 disfellowshipping offenses is found on this website. These analyses will confirm that a huge portion of what the GB calls “Jehovah’s discipline,” in reality, is human discipline.
[1]. See my article, “The governing Body rejects the full inspiration of the Bible,” in the category “The Governing Body.”
[2]. These 35 disfellowshipping offenses are listed in the Shepherd book. The GB has also invented two disfellowshipping offenses that are not listed in the Shepherd book: A significant violation of the laws of the country/antigovernment activity and speaking against mundane rules made by the GB, such as the view of the Covid-19 vaccine. See my discussion in The Appendix.
WHAT KIND OF PERSONS DESERVE TO BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED FROM THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION?
There are huge problems with the judicial system of JW in relation to the Bible. There are two basic problems in connection with the handling of a serious sin by a judicial committee, 1) the Bible’s instructions of which persons deserve to be disfellowshipped are ignored, and 2) the degree of repentance of a person is assessed by the three elders of the judicial committee.
The difference between to do and to be
As I have shown above, there are only 11 serious sins that can lead to disfellowshipping. When the Shepherd book lists 46 serious sins that can lead to disfellowshipping, 35 of these are additions to the Bible made up by the GB. Not only is the number of sins that can lead to disfellowshipping too high, but the nature of the sins that can lead to disfellowshipping is greatly misunderstood.
Paul mentions ten serious sins in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, and because three of these can be subsumed under other sins, there are seven serious sins that are mentioned in these chapters that can lead to disfellowshipping. Below I list 1 Corinthians 6:9 in four different versions of the revised NWT in the following order, English, Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish:
9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality.
9 Vet dere ikke at de som gjør urett ikke skal arve Guds rike? Ikke bli villedet. De som praktiserer seksuell umoral, [those who are practicing sexual immorality] de som tilber avguder, de som er utro mot ektefellen sin, menn som praktiserer homoseksuelle handlinger [men who are practicing homosexual actions] eller lar seg bruke til dette.
9 Er I ikke klar over at uretfærdige mennesker ikke vil komme til at arve Guds rige? Lad jer ikke vildlede. De der lever et seksuelt umoralsk liv [those who are living a sexually immoral life], tilbeder afguder eller begår ægteskabsbrud, mænd der lader sig bruge til homoseksuelle handlinger, mænd der lever som homoseksuelle [men who are living as homosexuals].
9 Vet ni inte att orättfärdiga människor inte ska ärva Guds rike? Bli inte vilseledda. De som lever ett sexuellt omoraliskt liv [those who are living a sexually immoral life], de som tillber avgudar, de som är otrogna mot sin äktenskapspartner, män som utövar homosexualitet [men who are practicing homosexuality]. eller underkastar sig sådant.
The Greek word that is rendered as “who are sexually immoral” is pornos. And this word is a noun and not a verb. Eight of the other ten words are nouns as well, and one is a substantivized adjective (i.e., it functions as a verbal noun and a nomen agentis or agent noun). Verbs describe actions, and nouns describe characteristics and occupations. The fact that Paul uses nouns is important because it shows that Christians must not be disfellowshipped because of an act of one or more serious sins, i.e., they should not be disfellowshipped solely for what they do but for what they are.
This difference is an intrinsic part of each of the nine nouns and the substantivized adjective. And what does that mean? We can illustrate this difference in the following way: The Greek noun alieus (“fisherman”) is, for example, derived from the verb alieuō (“to fish”). A fisherman is not a person who has been fishing one, two, or three times. But a fisherman is a person whose occupation is fishing.
And in a similar way, a pornos is not a person who has committed porneia (“sexual immorality”) one, two, or three times. But a pornos is a person whose personality is permeated by porneia (“sexual immorality”), a person “who is living a sexually immoral life.” The revised versions of the NWT confirm that a pornos is one who is living a sexually immoral life. The situation of the man in Corinth who was disfellowshipped also confirms that the nine nouns and the substantivized adjective refer to personalities and not to actions.
When Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, he probably was in Ephesus in Asia minor. There was a long distance between Ephesus and Corinth. The traveler who informed Paul of the man “who has (“living with” NWT13) the wife of his father”(1 Corinthians 5:1) came to Ephesus after a long journey. Paul wrote his letter, and a traveler had to make the same journey back to Corinth. The word “has” is present infinitive, which signifies continued action, and that he was disfellowshipped shows that he still was living a sexually immoral life when the congregation in Corinth received Paul’s letter.
Paul refers to the man using the noun poneros (“wicked”) in the sentence: “Remove the wicked (poneros) person from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:13). The word poneros is a strong word because it is used with reference to the Devil, and a person does not become “wicked” after he has committed a serious sin one or two times. Thus, the word poneros corroborates the view that only persons who are permeated by serious sin should be disfellowshipped.
There is one similarity between do and be, and that is actions. To be a wicked person, you have to do wicked actions. To be a pornos, a person has to do so many acts of porneia “sexual immorality” that this becomes a part of his personality. That is why the Norwegian NWT has the rendering (translated into English), “Those who are practicing sexual immorality,” and the Danish and Swedish NWT has the rendering, “those who are living a sexually immoral life.”
Sixty years ago, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses showed that they understood that only those who were permeated by wicked actions should be disfellowshipped. The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, page 411, says:
Therefore, the ones who are hardened in wrongdoing are the ones who are disfellowshiped. It is where serious violations of Jehovah’s righteous requirements have become a practice that this measure is taken. First John 3:4 states: “Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness.” So dedicated Christians who become practicers of lawlessness in the Christian congregation today are disfellowshiped.
Forty years ago, the Governing Body also showed that they understood the difference between being permeated by wicked action and doing a wicked action and committing an act of sin one or a few times. The Watchtower of May 1, 1983, page 8, says regarding the word “drunkards” in 1 Corinthians 6:10:
First, it should be noted that there is a difference between being unwittingly overtaken by drinking too much on one occasion and being a drunkard—making it a practice to become intoxicated.
Disfellowshipping a person from the Christian congregation should not occur often because only wicked persons should be disfellowshipped — and very few Christians would become “wicked” or “hardened in wrongdoing.”
However, not only have the members of the present GB rejected the view that only persons who “are practicing serious sins” and who “are hardened in wrongdoing” deserve to be disfellowshipped. But they have consciously gone in the very opposite direction.
The book for elders “Shepherd The Flock Of God”, published in 2019, chapter 16, point 7, says:
Even if this is the individual’s first time before a judicial committee, he must give evidence of genuine repentance if he is to remain in the congregation.
The book “Shepherd The Flock Of God”, published in 2010, chapter 7 point 7, expresses the same idea with slightly different words. I became an elder in 1963. From 1965 to 1975, I was a traveling representative of the Watchtower Society, and from 1975 to 2010, I was presiding overseer and coordinator in a big congregation in Oslo. During all these years, the elders in my congregation and elders in other congregations that I knew would never have considered the possibility of disfellowshipping a person who had made one serious sin for the first time. If someone had expressed such an idea, we elders would strongly have objected to it. The first time I saw this possibility was in the Shepherd book from 2010.
So from 2010 on, the members of the GB have set their disfellowshipping standard much too low. The result has been an explosion of disfellowshipping — around 600,000 Witnesses worldwide have been disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses since the year 2010.
The Watchtower of 1963 shows correctly that only persons who are practicing a serious sin and who are hardened in wrongdoing should be disfellowshipped. The members of the present GB have rejected this biblical viewpoint, and they have gone so far in the opposite direction that they have instructed judicial committees to consider whether a Christian who has committed one single serious sin should be disfellowshipped. |
DO COMMITTEES OF THREE ELDERS WITH DISFELLOWSHIPPING POWERS ACCORD WITH BIBLE PRINCIPLES?
Paul shows that Christians who are wicked must be disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation. But the Christian Greek Scriptures do not tell who will make the decision to disfellowship or what the procedures for this decision should be. However, there are some important clues in 1 Corinthians 6:1-4
1 Does any one of you who has a dispute with another dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? 2 Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you not competent to try very trivial matters? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not matters of this life? 4 If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down on in the congregation whom you assign as judges?
The point here is that if a Christians has a dispute with another Christian, this should not be settled in a worldly court but by the holy ones. The argument of The Watchtower is that in Israel, the elders in the gate of the town served as judges in disputes, and in a similar way, the elders of the holy ones in the congregations must serve as judges in disputes between Christians. This is a good argument.
An example supporting this view is found in Matthew 18:15-18:
15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.
The argument of The Watchtower is that the word “congregation” in the phrase “speak to the congregation” refers to the elders of the congregation, just as was the case in Israel. This is a logical argument because the law of Moses was still valid when Jesus uttered his words. Therefore, “the congregation” did not refer to all Jews in the city but only to the elders in the city gate. And a similar situation among Christians would also only refer to the elders.
However, there are two sides to this passage where The Watchtower errs. The clause “let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector” does not mean that the person has been disfellowshipped. The Watchtower also applies this clause to all Christians, with the meaning that they must shun this person who has been disfellowshipped. However, the pronoun “you” is in the singular, and its antecedent is the innocent man to whom another man sinned.” This means that only for the innocent man should the sinner be as a man of the nations and a tax collector and not to all members of the congregation.[1]
The point we can learn from 1 Corinthians chapter 6 and Matthew chapter 17 is that elders in each congregation represent the whole congregation. The Watchtower has applied this principle to judicial cases, and the body of elders appoints three elders to be members of the judicial committee. This is a logical way to apply the principle. However, many years ago, the elders were told that three elders were normally used in judicial cases. But in very difficult cases, five elders could be used without breaking any rule.
The conclusion of this section is that the formation of a judicial committee of three elders and the formation of an appeal committee with three other elders accord with the principles that are found in the Bible.
The formation of judicial committees and appeal committees with three elders accord with the principles of the Bible. |
[1]. A detailed analysis of Matthew 18:15-18 is found in the article, “A man of the nations, a tax collector” in the category “Shunning not based on the Bible”
THE REJECTION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES TO PROVE SERIOUS SIN
This is a very important section because it discusses the proof of the practice of serious sins that is the basis for disfellowshipping. When I became a Witness 60 years ago, the requirement of the Bible of two or three witnesses was strictly followed. But in the last part of the 20th century and in the 21st century, this requirement has been diluted and abandoned in a great number of situations, with the blessing of the members of the GB.
In the article “Propriety of Disfellowshipping” in The Watchtower of 1 March 1952, page 139, we read:
So first of all a charge must be made, by someone in the congregation or by some interested mature brother, about a person that has gone wrong. But just because a charge is made does not mean that we can disfellowship him. The Scriptures show that witnesses must be brought forth. No charge can be accepted unless there are two or three witnesses to establish the fact. That means an investigation. The company servant, the assistant company servant, the Bible study servant, and maybe some other mature brothers in the company should be called together to have a hearing, and those who are charged and the witnesses must be brought in and the matter be discussed. They cannot come to a conclusion that this person should be put out of the congregation on mere rumor or gossip. There must be two or three eyewitnesses that know such and such a thing occurred or was said. A decision cannot be made on guesswork. It may be that by a feeling or a sense that we have we believe the person is not good, but we may not be able to prove it. As long as we cannot prove it out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, that person cannot rightly be rejected. Otherwise you may be doing that individual a great harm.
From 1952 on it was possible to use the requirement of two or three Witnesses consistently because there were few concrete actions that were defined as disfellowshipping offenses. In the book Questions in Connection with the Service of the Kingdom (1961) that was written for judicial committees, there were only seven disfellowshipping offenses mentioned, and these are concrete actions that could be viewed by witnesses. Regarding proof in judicial cases, the Shepherd book of 2019 also mentions the same requirement that is found in the Bible. Chapter 12, point 40, says:
(1) Confession: Admission of wrongdoing, either written or oral, may be accepted as conclusive proof without other corroborating evidence. (Josh. 7:19) There must be two witnesses to a confession, and the confession must be clear and unambiguous.
(2) There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just people repeating hearsay; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15-17: John 8:17; 1 Tim. 5:19, 24, 25)
The quoted words were published in 2019, and they say about the same as the article from 1952. But the problem is that the requirement of two or three witnesses to prove that someone is guilty of a serious sin, to a great extent, has been diluted, and in reality, is not followed.
This situation resembles the situation that Jesus outlined in Matthew 15:3-6:
3 In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of his father or mother be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.
We have the same situation in the congregations today. What corresponds to “the commandment of God” is the requirement that two eyewitnesses must establish the guilt of a person. What corresponds to the situation where the religious leaders told the children to give gifts to God rather than to their parents is the great number of ambiguous disfellowshipping offenses invented by the GB where witnesses are not even possible, and the assessments that the elders are instructed to make in cases of concrete biblical disfellowshipping offenses. Because of these inventions and instructions, the requirement of God of two witnesses in a great number of instances has been made invalid.
There are four areas where the requirement of two or three witnesses is invalidated, 1) In one situation, strong circumstantial evidence is accepted as proof, 2) The elders have been given the power to decide whether the secular work of a Witness can lead to disfellowshipping. 3) A number of the 37 disfellowshipping offenses that were invented and introduced by the GB without any basis in the Bible are ambiguous, and so there cannot be two eyewitnesses, and 4) In a number of judicial cases where two or three witnesses could have been used, the members of the judicial committee have declared a person guilty because “of the overall consideration of all parts of the situation,” i.e. their personal impressions, instead of relying on eyewitnesses.
Strong circumstantial evidence instead of two eyewitnesses
There is only one situation where the written instruction is that strong circumstantial evidence for a serious sin can be accepted. The Shepherd book chapter 12, point 7 says:
Strong Circumstantial Evidence of Sexual Immorality (Pornei’a): lf at least two eyewitnesses report that the accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or with a known homosexual) under improper circumstances, judicial action may be warranted. (w18.07 p. 32) The elders cannot apply one rule to every case; each situation has unique circumstances. After two elders have thoroughly investigated, the body of elders must use good judgment in discerning whether serious wrongdoing has occurred. lf the elders are unsure how to proceed, they should consult with the Service Department.
The reference in the Shepherd book is to The Watchtower of July 2017, page 32, where we read:
If an unmarried couple spend the night together under improper circumstances, would that constitute a sin meriting judicial action?
Yes, if there are no extenuating circumstances, a judicial committee would be formed on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence of sexual immorality.—1 Cor. 6:18.
The body of elders carefully evaluates each situation to determine whether a judicial committee is warranted. For example: Have the couple been pursuing a romantic relationship? Have they been previously counseled regarding their conduct with each other? What circumstances led to their spending the night together? Did they plan ahead to do so? Did they have a choice in the matter, or were there extenuating circumstances, perhaps an unforeseen occurrence or genuine emergency that left them with no choice but to spend the night together? (Eccl. 9:11) What were the sleeping arrangements? Since each situation is different, there may be other relevant factors that the elders will consider.
After the facts are established, the body of elders will determine whether the couple’s conduct warrants judicial action.
It is really strange that the GB in this single situation has given the instruction to the elders that strong circumstantial evidence can be accepted because this is a direct rejection of the requirement of the Bible of two or three eyewitnesses.[1]
Elders are authorized to disfellowship a person if they decide that his employment is wrong
In connection with disassociation, the Shepherd book 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.
12.32: An individual continuing in employment directly involved with gambling or employment making him a clear accomplice or promoter of gambling would be subject to judicial action, usually after being allowed six months to make the needed adjustments (lvs pp. 204-209) In questionable cases, consult the service department.
These quotations show how the GB has given great power over the lives of individual Witnesses to the elders. This power was already given to the elders 55 years ago. The Kingdom Ministry of September 1976 had the article “Doing Work with a Good Conscience before God and Men.” 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 promotes a wrong practice, the Christian should reject such employment may be fine in some situations. A Christian would, for example, not have a job where the customers were cheated or a job that included a violation of the laws of the country. But this is a personal decision the Christian must make without any pressure from others.
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” and it is “definitely established.” So the question naturally arises: How can we know that “the connection is definite and evident,” and is “definitely established”? Who decides that? The elders are the ones who decide, and this exposes the great power they wield over the lives of individual Witnesses.
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 represent a small part of the production, the elders of his congregation can decide, against his will, that the brother is an “accomplice in 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— in 1976, he would have been disfellowshipped. 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. We have the same situation with a brother who has a job where a part of what is produced is sold to religious organizations, or he has a job where he more directly works for a religious organization or a gambling enterprise.
The biblical requirement is that two eyewitnesses must prove the guilt of a person. But where are these witnesses? The disfellowshipping or disassociation of a Witness in connection with his employment is exclusively based on the assessment of the elders and not on eyewitnesses.
The ambiguousness of many of the 37 non-biblical disfellowshipping offenses makes it impossible to find two eyewitnesses to a declared serious sin
In the next section, I will first discuss one umbrella term, “gross uncleanness/uncleanness with greediness,” under which eight disfellowshipping offenses are subsumed. Then I will discuss one of these eight disfellowshipping offenses “Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts.” I will show that in both cases the situation is vague and ambiguous, and it is not possible to find two witnesses that can establish a serious sin.
Gross uncleanness/uncleanness with greediness
The Greek word akatharsia means “uncleanness,” and the word is explained in The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, page 30.
Uncleanness (Greek, a·ka·thar·siʹa) is the broadest of the three terms rendered “fornication,” “uncleanness,” and “loose conduct.” It embraces impurity of any kind—in sexual matters, in speech, in action, and in spiritual relationships. “Uncleanness” covers a wide range of serious sins.
As recorded at 2 Corinthians 12:21, Paul refers to those who “formerly sinned but have not repented over their uncleanness and fornication and loose conduct that they have practiced.” Since “uncleanness” is listed with “fornication and loose conduct,” some forms of uncleanness warrant judicial action. But uncleanness is a broad term that includes things that are not of a judicial nature. Just as a house may be somewhat dirty or completely filthy, uncleanness has degrees. (My italics.)
It is true that akatharsia “covers a wide range of serious sins.” But the argument “Since “uncleanness” is listed with “fornication and loose conduct,” some forms of uncleanness warrant judicial action (= disfellowshipping), is really a silly argument. In Galatians 5:19, 20 “fornication (“NWT13; “sexual immorality”), uncleanness, and loose conduct (NWT13: “brazen conduct”) are mentioned together with 12 other works of the flesh. If the argument is valid that because uncleanness is mentioned together with fornication and loose conduct, this shows that “some forms of uncleanness warrant judicial action,” this must also be the case with the other 12 works of the flesh. But that is not possible, because “hostility, strife, and jealousy,” for example, are abstract notions that cannot warrant judicial action.
And this is not the extent of the silliness, there is more. The argument is that only “some forms” of uncleanness can lead to disfellowshipping. This means that the authority of the Bible now is transferred to humans because humans (the members of the GB) must decide which forms of uncleanness are disfellowshipping offenses. And these forms of uncleanness are said to represent “gross uncleanness.” That such arguments are presented in The Watchtower in all seriousness is stunning. It shows the low level of wisdom that the writers of this magazine have in the 21st century.[2]
But there is yet another side of “uncleanness” that also has been constructed by the GB, and that is “uncleanness with greediness.” The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, page 30, says:
Paul said, according to Ephesians 4:19, that some individuals had “come to be past all moral sense” and that “they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness.” Paul thus puts “uncleanness . . . with greediness” in the same category as loose conduct. If a baptized person unrepentantly practices “uncleanness . . . with greediness,” he can be expelled from the congregation on the grounds of gross uncleanness.
There are two problems with the arguments in the quotation. The word “greediness” is defined in the margin of the online NWT Study Bible of Ephesians 3:5 as “an insatiable desire to have more.” Such an idea is neither found in the Hebrew Scriptures nor in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and this means that the translation of the Greek word pleonexia as “greed” is wrong. A better translation is “exploitation.”[3] The second problem is that the words in Ephesians 4:19 about “uncleanness” refer to the people of the nations, and therefore they cannot be applied to Christians, as The Watchtower does. Therefore, both the expression “gross uncleanness” and “uncleanness with greediness” have no basis in the Bible whatsoever.
However, these two expressions are used as umbrella terms for the following eight actions that the GB defines as disfellowshipping offenses:
- Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts.
- Immoral conversations over the telephone or the Internet.
- Viewing abhorrent forms of pornography.
- Use of marijuana, betel nut.
- Misuse of tobacco.
- Abuse of medical, illicit, or addictive drugs.
- Extreme physical uncleanness.
- Oral or anal copulation inside marriage.
That these eight different actions are disfellowshipping offenses according to the Bible is not true. The supposed connection between these actions and the Bible is the human-constructed expression “gross uncleanness/uncleanness with greediness.” The point I am making is that many of the 37 disfellowshipping offenses that the GB has invented and introduced are ambiguous, and the requirement of two witnesses to establish its list of serious sins cannot be applied. This is also the case with most of the eight actions listed above. I will use the first entry as an example.
“Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts”
The following quotation from The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, page 30, illustrates the major role the subjective assessment of the elders plays in making these judgments:
Suppose an engaged couple indulged in passion-arousing heavy petting on numerous occasions. The elders might determine that even though these individuals did not manifest a brazen attitude characterizing loose conduct, there was a measure of greediness in their conduct. (My italics.) So the elders might take judicial action because gross uncleanness was involved. Gross uncleanness might also be appropriate grounds for handling a case involving a person who repeatedly makes sexually explicit telephone calls to another person, especially if he was previously counseled about the matter. (My italics.)
The first problem for the elders is to find out exactly what happened. James 5:14-16 says that if a Christian is spiritually weak and has committed sins, he can call for the elders of the congregation, and they will help him or her to become well. But there is no place in the NT giving the elders the right to ask a Christian questions about his life in order to find out whether he has sinned; and in this case, the focus would also be on intimate details.
In such cases, the elders are taught not to ask more questions than is absolutely necessary. But in this case, it is necessary to ask many questions in order to find the details of what happened, how it started, how it progressed, as well as the feelings and emotions of the young people involved. The two will be interrogated separately. But will they remember exactly what happened? It is possible that they view what happened and how many times it happened somewhat differently. In that case, the elders could get the impression that one or both were hiding the truth and that they, therefore, had a brazen attitude and deserve to be disfellowshipped for that.
The second problem is to get the correct understanding of the situation, which is defined by rules that are vague and ambiguous and which can be viewed in different ways. The instruction for the elders is that to disfellowship someone or not may depend on how many times a sin has occurred and whether the person regrets his sin or not. Then the question arises: How many times are represented by the expression on numerous occasions? About 30 years ago, there was a course for elders where the handling of judicial cases that could lead to disfellowshipping was discussed in detail. Since that time, the elders have had courses of approximately two days per year. In these courses, the handling of judicial cases has sporadically been mentioned in passing. But there has not been any detailed discussion of the handling of such cases. Thus, the elders today are not taught how to handle judicial cases. Therefore, different judicial committees will view “on numerous occasions” differently. One committee will disfellowship a Witness while another committee will not disfellowship a Witness for exactly the same actions.
An important point that the committee must consider is whether the wrong actions represent a measure of greediness. I will show below that this phrase is a contradiction in terms. As mentioned, Ephesians 3:5 in the online NWT (Study Edition) defines greed as “an insatiable desire to have more,” and, of course, it is impossible to have “a measure” of an insatiable or immeasurable desire to have more. The word “insatiable” refers to a situation where a person can never be satisfied, and a person cannot have “a measure” of ‘never being satisfied.’ However, the three elders in the judicial committee will probably consider the person in the light of what they understand the term “greed” to mean. And for most persons, the concept “greed” is unclear and ambiguous.
Men and women are naturally attracted to one another. So, when two persons that are dating are kissing each other, emotions are stimulated, and this is the first step on the road to sexual relations. So the question arises, how can the elders know whether this kissing is a natural expression of affection between the two or whether it represents a “measure of greediness” from the perspective of the elders as it relates to sexual relations? The future of the two is based on the subjective assessment of the elders, and different committees will make different assessments.
The concept “gross uncleanness” is also mentioned. As I already have shown, this is a concept that was made up and introduced by the GB without having any basis in the Bible. Nevertheless, the elders are charged with considering whether the actions of the young ones represent “gross uncleanness.”
Returning to the issue of the requirement of two witnesses to show that someone is guilty of serious sin, we can ask: Is it possible to find two witnesses who can say that the actions of the two young people indicated “a measure of greediness”? Or is it possible to find two witnesses who can say that the young couple was guilty of “gross uncleanness”? The quotation above illustrates that the present members of the GB have rejected the biblical requirement of two witnesses in many situations, and instead, they have authorized the three elders in the judicial committees to make subjective assessments of elusive and ambiguous concepts that are invented by the GB. When members of the congregations are disfellowshipped on this basis, they are not disfellowshipped because of “Jehovah’s discipline,” but solely because of the discipline of the members of the Governing Body.
The overall consideration of all parts of the situation
The expression in the heading was used by the counsel of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who is himself a Witness and an elder, in the case between the Ski congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Gry Nygård. This case will be discussed below. The judges in a court make an “overall consideration of all parts of the situation” as a basis for their ruling. But to do that in judicial cases will nullify the Bible’s requirement of two eyewitnesses. And yet, this was done in the case of Nygård, it is also done in cases based on “gross uncleanness/uncleanness with greediness, and it is done in a great number of other judicial cases. So it is clear the requirement of two eyewitnesses to establish guilt is not followed by the elders in a great number of judicial cases. The subjective assessment of the elders has taken the place of eyewitnesses.
[1]. For a detailed discussion of the issue, see my article “Circumstantial evidence for porneia” in the category “Different actions.”
[2]. For a detailed discussion of the use of the word “uncleanness,” see my book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, rev. ed. pages 227-230.
[3]. For a detailed discussion of pleonexia and related words, see my article “Greed” in the category, “The eleven disfellowshipping offenses.”
THE CASE OF GRY NYGÅRD AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE REJECTION OF TWO WITNESSES
Christians whose personalities are “hardened in wrongdoing” deserve to be disfellowshipped in connection with the 11 following actions:
A sexual immoral person
An idolater
A thief
An exploiter (wrongly translated as “a greedy person”)
A drunkard
A reviler
A robber
A person spreading false teachings
A person making a sect
A person joining a false religious organization
A murderer
The 11 different practices that are connected with the personalities described above are quite clear, and in many situations, it will be possible to find two witnesses to different situations indicating that a person is guilty of the same serious sin over a period of time. It may, for example, be possible to find witnesses that can confirm that a person has been habitually intoxicated over a long time and therefore is a drunkard.
However, there are also problems in connection with these eleven practices because there can also be ambiguousness here. For example, intoxication will be defined differently by different persons, and the GB has added ambiguous definitions to the Greek word porneia (“sexual immorality”).[1] This is one reason why it is so important to realize that only after a person is first permeated by one of the eleven disfellowshipping offenses should he be disfellowshipped. And normally, it would be rather easy to find witnesses to the same serious sins being committed a number of times. This would also preclude anyone being disfellowshipped wrongly because of the subjective assessment of the three members of the judicial committee.
The handling of every case in the judicial committee is confidential, and no other persons, not even fellow elders in the same congregation, will be allowed to get information of the work and considerations of the judicial committee. But Gry Nygård was disfellowshipped from the Ski congregation in 2018, and because the elders would not help her, as a last resort, she went to the courts. In 2021, the Court of Appeals ruled that her disfellowshipping was invalid and that the congregation should pay her 100,000 Norwegian kroner and her legal costs of about 900,000 kroner.
In the District Court and in the Court of Appeals, two of the elders in the judicial committee and two elders in the appeal committee were subpoenaed as witnesses. And what they said during the two court cases gives us a detailed look into the work of the two committees. I have access to the written rulings of the judges, what the counsels of JW and of Nygård wrote to the courts, as well as transcripts of what the witnesses said. On this basis, I have firsthand knowledge of the court cases. I have made a study of the court cases and whether the members of the committees followed the Shepherd book and the Bible[2]
The violation of the Shepheard book and the Bible by the two committees
Those who are interested in the issue should read my study of the whole case as well as the witness testimony of Gry Nygård to the court. In the discussion that follows, I will show how the requirement of two eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession has been ignored and how the overall subjective consideration of all parts of the case was the basis for her disfellowshipping.
A man, who was an acquaintance of Nygård, had oral sex with her while she was sleeping. She sent the following SMS message to the elder KS:
Hello. I need to speak with you elders. I have come into a situation that I do not know how to handle, and I think it is good to speak to you for safety’s sake. I hope that this will be possible. Greetings from Gry. (My italics)
KS asked her to describe the situation, and she sent the following message:
Yes. The situation is that something happened while I was asleep. I am uncertain whether I have crossed the border to porneia. (My italics)
There must be evidence of wrongdoing if a judicial committee shall be formed.
KS and another elder viewed the two text messages of Nygård as a confession that she had committed sexual immorality. This is clearly wrong because Nygård says that the sexual immorality happened while she was sleeping, and she wanted to speak with the elders “for safety’s sake.” In spite of the fact that there were no witnesses and no unambiguous confession, a judicial committee was formed.
Before the judicial case, the person must be informed about what he is supposed to have done.
One reason for this information is that the accused can think about the situation and has the possibility to bring witnesses who can testify that he is innocent. Nygård was given no information about what she was supposed to have done. And according to her testimony, she was not told that she was invited to a judicial meeting.
The judicial case: No eyewitnesses and no confession
Nygård was disfellowshipped because of sexual immorality, which is an umbrella term. But she was not told which action(s) she had done that was considered sexual immorality. Two elders from the judicial committee and two elders from the appeal committee gave their testimony in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals. Table 1 shows that the testimonies of all four elders contradict each other. Nygård denies everything that we see in the table, and all the time she has told us that she fell asleep and did not wake up until the next day at 11:30:
Table 1 The contradictory statements regarding what happened at Hotel Plaza
KS | The text messages Nygård sent are a confession of sexual immorality. What Nygård told the judicial committee (which is not specified) confirms this. Also “that she spent the night at the hotel and what happened there.” But at the question of Nygård, KS refused to clearly say what her sin was. |
TGU | Nygård fell asleep on the bed of the man, and she woke up when he was on top of her. By her free will, they had sexual intercourse — after she woke up. |
TG | Nygård woke up in the night when the man performed oral sex on her. She liked it, and therefore she participated in the sexual immorality — after she woke up. |
RA | Nygård and the man kissed each other and went to bed together. Therefore Nygård “to some degree” is guilty of sexual immorality —before she fell asleep. |
KS confirmed that Nygård, in contradiction of the elders’ recollections above, presented a different version of what happened and that she consistently presented the same testimony to the judicial committee, the appeal committee, and the District Court, and she is the only witness to what happened at Hotel Plaza. In view of this, it is thought-provoking that all four committee members quoted above contradict what Nygård said in court.
The majority of the Court of Appeals wrote:
The result of this [that the case has not received correct handling], according to the view of the majority, is that the members of the committees have used selective samples of facts and/or imagined “facts” as the basis for the decision of disfellowshipping…
The presentation of the evidence has further revealed that central issues seem to have been overlooked or have not been decided, illogical and unacceptable reasonings occur, means to test what is the basis for the committees are lacking, and Nygård has not been informed of the reason why she has been disfellowshipped.
The different viewpoints of the four committee members, as we see in Table 1 show that the requirement of two or three eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession was ignored. The quotations from the two judges who were the majority of the court show that they realized that Nygård was disfellowshipped without any proof.
The counsel of JW, who himself is a Witness and an elder, also shows, albeit unintentionally, that Nygård was disfellowshipped without real proof. He wrote that the reason for Nygård’s disfellowshipping was that the judicial committee performed “an overall consideration of all the parts of her account” and that “there were a number of judgments that the judicial committee made.” His expressions show clearly that the judicial committee did not follow the Shepherd book’s requirements for proof — “an overall consideration” and “a number of judgments” cannot serve as proof.
As for regret: Nygård cannot regret something the committee has not defined and which she has not done.
The situation in connection with potential regret is completely ridiculous. The committee members did not tell Nygård what she had done. But they asked her if she had confessed her sin to her husband and several similar questions. But she could not do this because she has consistently denied that she has committed a serious sin. And because she had not confessed her sin, the elders decided that she had not regretted her sin, and she was disfellowshipped.
The handling of the case by the appeal committee
The role of this committee is to consider whether the judicial committee found proof of serious wrongdoing, and if so, whether the person showed regret at the meeting with the judicial committee.
The report written by the judicial committee does not present any proof of wrongdoing on the part of Nygård. And it does not state whether she showed regret or not. On this basis alone, the appeal committee should have reversed the decision of disfellowshipping and closed the case. But despite the lack of proof of wrongdoing, the members of the appeal committee upheld the disfellowshipping.
Actions of sexual immorality are concrete actions that can be proven by eyewitnesses or a personal clear and unambiguous confession. The case of Nygård is a clear example of how members of the judicial and appeal committees ignore the requirement of proof and instead exercise their own subjective assessments. What is particularly bad in this situation is that the GB has given the elders the authority to assess the case and use their gut feelings instead of relying on clear proof.
My experience is that a great number of those who are disfellowshipped are thrown out of the congregation on the basis of the subjective assessments of the committee members and not on the basis of proof (eyewitnesses) or on their own confession. One of the basic reasons why the majority of the court ruled that the disfellowshipping of Nygård was invalid was that the handling of the case showed that she had no security under the law. It is absolutely clear that in connection with judicial cases the individual Witnesses have no security under the law — the members of the committees are both accusers, jury, and judges, and their decisions cannot be questioned by others.
[1]. See my articles “Drunkenness” and “Sexual immorality” in the category “The eleven disfellowshipping offenses.”
[2]. The two parts of my study, as well as the witness testimony of Nygård, are found in the category “Disfellowshipping.”
CHRISTIAN FREEDOM VERSUS AUTHORITARIAN LAW
As I have shown in this study, in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, and on my website, the organization in the early 1950s and when the elder arrangement was introduced in 1972, was very different from the organization that we have today. During those years, the organization was theocratic — experienced elders connected with the Watchtower Society took the lead in the organization, but the individual Witnesses had great freedom. Today, the organization is autocratic and militant — all power rests with the eight men on the Governing Body, and those who disagree with what these men say and do will be disfellowshipped. It is also clear that the members of the present GB do not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible, and they have introduced a huge number of human commandments in addition to the Bible. And as I have demonstrated in this study, a huge portion of the instructions given by the GB in connection with disfellowshipping contradict what the Bible says about disfellowshipping.
Applying “Jehovah’s discipline” in the right way would mean, as I see it, that the organization returned to the theocratic position that was developed during World War II and reached its climax in 1972 when the elder arrangement was introduced. It means that the present power structure of the organization and the whole system of disfellowshipping must be radically changed.
In my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body I show that the expression “the faithful and discreet slave” in Mathew 24:45 does not refer to a small group of leaders during the presence of Jesus. But it refers to any servant of God who is found to be faithfully carrying out his Christian responsibilities as God’s slave when Jesus comes as judge in the great tribulation. I also show that there was no ongoing, sitting governing body in the Christian congregations in the first century CE, and so there should not be any governing body today. That some humans should be a government for the Christian organization violates several Bible principles. Indeed, governing or ruling over others on the part of anointed Christians takes place after they receive their heavenly reward — not while they are still on earth. (1 Corinthians 4:8) This means that the dictatorial position of the eight men on the present Governing Body, in reality, rests on the usurpation of power. Any worldwide organization must have a leadership, and at the end of my book, I suggest a new organizational structure without anyone having dictatorial powers.
A comparison between the original theocratic organization and the present autocratic organization
The book Questions in Connection with the Service of the Kingdom was published in 1961, and it lists seven disfellowshipping offenses while the book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” that was published in 2019 lists 46 disfellowshipping offenses, with two others listed elsewhere. The first important step to return to the theocratic organization must be to stick to the Bible and discard all the 35 (+2) disfellowshipping offenses that are human commandments that have been invented and introduced by the members of the GB.
The misuse of power in connection with secular work and different activities
The elders in the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses today function as a clergy class with the GB on the top, and contrary to 1 Peter 5:2, 3, they “are lording it over those who are God’s inheritance.” They have all power, and the congregation members must accept anything they say and do. Just as the Catholic priests do, the elders can consider the serious sins of congregation members, and they can give them absolution (“forgiveness”) for their sins by allowing them to remain in the congregation. Or they can decide that a congregation member will not get absolution because they assess that he does not show a sufficient degree of repentance as subjectively determined by the elders. And on this basis, they throw him or her out of the congregation and thus, condemn him or her to eternal destruction. The power of the elders is not confined or limited to religious matters inside the congregation, but the elders can also exercise their power in connection with secular work.
A concept in connection with secular work that almost has become a mantra for the present GB is “being a clear accomplice of.” This concept has been stretched to its limit by the present GB, and it is applied inside the congregations. A quotation from The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, shows how the leaders of the theocratic organization of JW after World War II stood up for Christian freedom:
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, 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.
The expressions “being a clear accomplice of nonneutral activities” and “employment making him a clear accomplice or promoter of gambling” that I discuss below represent a clear contrast to the quotation from the Watchtower of 1951. Today, persons who fill the two definitions will be disfellowshipped (disassociated) if they do not change their work within six months. Here we have an excellent contrast of the theocratic organization in connection with Christian freedom in comparison with the present autocratic organization with its use of dictatorial powers.
Please note that in the free Christian community of JW after World War II the Society (the leaders of JW connected with the Watchtower Society) “had no specific recommendation” regarding “forms of activity or work,” except for the preaching of the good news of the Kingdom”! But how should anarchy be avoided? By the help of the Christian conscience. And we note that Christians could “make different decisions on the same matters.” In no way do the comments in the article contribute to divisions. Because the possibility of “different decisions” did not relate to faith issues based on the Bible but to different decisions in connections with activities and work.
In his account about his life as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for several decades, A.H. Macmillan had an interesting observation about how N.H. Knorr, the president of the Watchtower Society from 1942, viewed unity:
Have you ever noticed how different ministers, representing the same religious organization, teach somewhat different ideas on the same subject? Conferences within their church systems are continually trying to iron out these differences, yet they persist. Knorr believed that not only should all Christians be ministers, but all should teach in exact unity of thought. Would this be possible without making “parrots” of them? Knorr believed it could be, and set out to do it…(some brothers in) the organization were recognized as accomplished speakers…But Knorr wanted everyone in the organization to be “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”…
Organizationally we were now on solid footing, and the maturity of the Society as a whole was quite evident. But Knorr realized that every minister must be personally equipped to preach…Now Knorr embarked on a campaign to bring maturity to every one of Jehovah’s witnesses and especially prepare them to preach individually yet without contradicting one another…
Now the training program began in earnest. In April of 1943 special schools were organized in every congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses which became a regular part of congregational activity.[1]
The goal of Knorr, as expressed by Macmillan, was to educate every Witness by the help of personal Bible study to become a mature Christian. This would result in unity in faith and the ability of each Witness to make balanced decisions on the basis of his or her conscience
Today, the situation is different, which means that the Witnesses have become parrots. They say the same as the GB says, and there is no call for independent Bible study, let alone any education as to how deep Bible study is done. Today, there is “a Talmud-like set of regulations” made by the GB, exactly what the article above warned about. And the Witnesses believe that everything that the GB does or says comes from God and is the truth. When the GB changes something, the new view is from God as well. This is what I will call “mindless conformity.” The last example of this kind of conformity is the letter to the elders of September 27, 2021, regarding the issue of the Covid 19 vaccination. If anyone in a congregation voices a different view from the view of the GB even on this mundane issue, he could be disfellowshipped because he is creating divisions in the congregation.[2]
I will now return to a discussion of employment. The Question from Readers column in The Watchtower of February 1, 1954, page 94, has the following question: “Is gambling a violation of Bible principles?
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. It is doubtless preferable to be separate from the atmosphere surrounding such activities, and the Christian may wisely arrange to make a change in his occupation. It is a matter each one must decide for himself and in accord with his circumstances and conscience. The Watch Tower Society does not decide as to an individual’s employment, as we previously stated in the September 15, 1951, Watchtower, page 574.
The issue here is gambling, and we note that even though it is said that “gambling appeals to selfishness and weakens moral fiber,” to participate in gambling, or even to be employed in a gambling enterprise, is a personal matter based on one’s conscience. This is again a typical example of Christian freedom. As I have shown above, a person who today is employed by a gambling enterprise must change his work within six months or else he will be disfellowshipped.
Gambling is not mentioned in the Bible, and so any rule regarding gambling is obviously a human commandment. The arbitrariness of the Talmud-like rules of the GB is reflected in the fact that the view of gambling has repeatedly changed over the years. From 1961, gambling was viewed as extortion but that view was discarded in 1972, and from then on, gambling was viewed as greed. The view of which kinds of gambling that represent disfellowshipping offenses has changed eight times since the early 1950s.[3]
I will now discuss one question related to “activities.” From the time of World War II, using tobacco in some form was viewed by the leaders of JW as a filthy habit. This was mentioned in an article in The Watchtower of 1942, page 205. But the article also said:
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.”[4]
The book Questions in Connection With the Service of the Kingdom (1961) was published to help judicial committees. On page 78 we find the question, “Will the use of tobacco result in restrictions for one who wants to serve Jehovah?”:
If a person who uses tobacco, is presenting himself for baptism, one should in a friendly manner show him that the use of tobacco is an impure habit that is not becoming for a servant of God. Even though we will not refuse to baptize him because he uses tobacco, we will not view him as a good example for the brothers in the congregation. And as long as he uses tobacco we will not appoint him as a ministerial servant or an overseer in the Christian organization. He cannot receive any privileges of service. He can participate in the theocratic ministry school and give talks, but he will not be allowed to give lectures. He may go from house to house, make back-calls, and conduct Bible studies, and in other ways be helping in the field service, as he is looking to Jehovah to get the power to quit his impure habit. One who is using tobacco cannot serve as pioneer or a fulltime representative for the theocratic organization.
There may be exceptions from this rule. But one who is using tobacco can only be appointed as a ministerial servant or an overseer if there is no other baptized person in the congregation who can serve as a servant. If one who is using tobacco is appointed as a servant, he must accept that he cannot use tobacco publicly while he is preaching in the field or in the neighborhood of the Kingdom Hall. And he must make conscious efforts to quit this bad habit.
Tobacco was still viewed as a filthy habit. Nevertheless, if no person could fill the need, a Witness who used tobacco could be appointed as a ministerial servant or an overseer. But in 1973, there was a change of view. The Watchtower of 1973, pages 340 and 341, stated that any Witness who used tobacco would be disfellowshipped if he or she did not quit the habit within six months. Tobacco is not mentioned in the Bible, so this was clearly a human commandment that was invented and introduced by the GB. So again, we see an example of the demand for mindless conformity on the part of the GB in contrast with the Christian freedom that existed after World War II.
At the end of this section, I will return to the concept “being a clear accomplice of,” that I have asserted has been stretched too far by the GB. JW want to be neutral in political and military issues. The elders have the power to say to a Witness that ‘because a 20% of the production of the factory where you work are parts of engines for military vehicles that will be sold to the armed forces, you must change your job within six months or else you will have disassociated yourself from the congregation’ (= is disfellowshipped). But is he “a clear accomplice of nonneutral activities”? I would say No. If 50% of the production was sold to the armed forces, I would still say No.
We may use another example. A witness works in a factory where tents are produced and where all these tents are sold to the armed forces. Even in that case, I would say that the Witness is not an accomplice of nonneutral activities. How so? Because JW recognize the country where they live as a sovereign state, JW will also acknowledge its right to have military forces. Because JW view themselves as ambassadors of God’s Kingdom, they will not be a part of the nation’s military forces. But JW have nothing against these forces. They can, for example, be used to help people in connection with a natural disaster. So, to make items that the armed forces can use cannot be a called “nonneutral activity” in my view. Of course, some will disagree with that, but that is precisely the point, no human can make decisions for the consciences of others.
Additionally, the issue of responsibility is difficult and ambiguous. From one point of view, I can say that my only responsibility is to do my work, for which I receive my salary. What my employer does with the things that I produce in part or in whole is not my responsibility. This is just as logical a view as the viewpoint that I am responsible for everything the factory that I work for produces and sells. This means that the standpoint that corroborates what the Bible says is the one that was expressed in articles in The Watchtower in the 1950s. No rules can be made regarding different kinds of work and activities. Each Christian must make his or her decision on the basis of his or her conscience, and these decisions can be different for different Christians.
[1]. A.H. Macmillan, Faith on the March (1956), pages 169, 170, 193.
[2]. See the letter and my discussion of it in the Appendix.
[3]. See my article, «Gambling — changed viewpoints and subjective judgments,” in the category “Reversed view of disfellowshipping offenses,”
[4]. See my article, “The use of tobacco” in the category “Gross uncleanness with greediness.”
THE BAD EFFECT OF SHUNNING THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DISFELLOWSHIPPED
I have demonstrated that shunning is a human commandment that has no basis in the Bible.[1] A person who is disfellowshipped, and therefore, will be shunned by all except the family that is living in his house, is more like the extreme Sharia laws of the Muslims than anything else that I know of. The word sharia means “the path” or “a road that leads to water,” and it refers to a set of principles that govern the moral lives of Muslims. And the Sharia law may be extreme, with the cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning opponents of the law.
Christians today cannot kill others, but disfellowshipping is the same as “killing” a person because he has no longer any hope of everlasting life, according to the GB. The purpose of disfellowshipping is to lead the sinner on the right path, according to the instructions, so he can repent and return to the congregation. If that happens, he is no longer “dead.” But to achieve this, force (the GB’s version of disfellowshipping, i.e. shunning) is used, exactly as in the Sharia law. However, Paul said that it was God’s kindness that would lead to repentance and not the use of force (Romans 2:4).
An analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:14
The Greek word that is used to justify shunning is synanamignymi, and it occurs only three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 5:9; 6:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:14.) According to Louw and Nida, the meaning of the words is:
To associate with one another, normally involving spacial proximity and/or joint activity, and usually implying some kind of reciprocal relation or involvement — ‘to associate, to be in the company of, to be involved with, association.’
The definition of the word does not justify JW’s extreme behavior of shunning disfellowshipped persons. So when the GB uses 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 6:11, where the word synanamignymi occurs to justify shunning, they are misleading the readers. I will elucidate this by discussing 2 Thessalonians 3:14, where the word also occurs.
What would be the error of the man that is mentioned? The apostle Paul said that he was “not obedient to our word through this letter.” (NWT13) What would happen to such a person today? A letter from Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. to all circuit and district overseers, dated September 1, 1980, says:
If a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persist in believing other doctrine despite reproof, then he is apostatizing…then appropriate judicial action should be taken.
The contents of the literature published by The Watchtower Society is called “the teachings of Jehovah,” and a Witness who does not accept this teaching must be disfellowshipped (= “appropriate judicial action should be taken”). This instruction contradicts Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, where he shows that only persons who are permeated by one of seven particular actions mentioned should be disfellowshipped. Disagreements with the leaders, which are called “causing divisions” in the Shepherd book, are not a disfellowshipping offense according to the Christian Greek Scriptures.[2]
The man that is mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 evidently would not be disfellowshipped back in the first century, but NWT13 says, “keep this one marked (sēmeioomai) and stop associating (synanamignymi) with him.” The meaning of the word sēmeioomai is “to pay special attention to something for the sake of a future recall and response” according to Louw and Nida, and “to mark, inscribe marks upon; mid. to mark for one’s self” according to Mounce Greek Dictionary. The verb is present medium imperative, and a medium form (mid.) may have a reflexive meaning as “to mark for one’s self.”
Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians were written to the whole congregation and not only to the elders. Thus, the marking was not an official action of the congregation, but each member of the congregation could mark the person for himself or herself.
What do the words “stop associating with him” mean? Do they imply shunning? No. He should not be viewed as an enemy, but the members of the congregation should “continue admonishing (noutheteō) him.” The word noutheteō has the meaning “to put in mind, to admonish, warn” according to Mounce Greek Dictionary. The verb is present active imperative, and this form refers to something that is continuing, as NWT13 shows. Shunning, therefore, is unquestionably ruled out.
The purpose of the treatment of the person is expressed by the verb entrepō, whose meaning is “to cause someone to be embarrassed or ashamed,” according to Louw and Nida. This verb is aorist passive subjunctive, so the meaning must be “that he might be put to shame.” When we now know the meaning of the principal words, we can understand the application of synanamignymi (“to mix together”).
Because the letter is written to the whole congregation, none of its members should “associate” with the man,” but all the members of the congregations should “continue admonishing him.” In order to “continue admonishing him” the congregation members had to speak with the man, and while speaking with him, they would treat him as a brother, which would mean greeting him when they met him and treating him in a kind way— and this should continue.
Greek words may have a semantic field including different nuances of meaning, and the context will often indicate the meaning that the author has made visible. The basic meaning of synanamignymi is “to mix together.” The extreme way of treating disfellowshipped persons by JW — not greeting a person, speaking with him, and treating him as if he did not exist — is not included in the semantic field of this word. This is seen in the use of the word in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3. As mentioned, the word is also used in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, and there is nothing in the context indicating a different meaning from 2 Thessalonians chapter 3.
So, in which sense should Christians not “mix together” (synanamignymi) with certain persons? First Corinthians 5:11 shows that not “to mix together” means not to fraternize or associate with persons to the point of not even sharing a meal with them, and 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 shows that the congregation members should continue to speak with and admonish the mentioned person they were not to “mix together” (synanamignymi) with. And the purpose of this was that the mentioned person “might be ashamed.” So we understand that the relationship between the members of the congregation and the persons they should not “mix together with” had changed — but not in the sense of treating the person as if he did not exist (= shunning him).
To share a meal would indicate a mutual friendship, where the persons who are eating are on the same level and accept each other’s actions. This we should not do in order to show him that he has to change his course. On the other hand, we should treat the “marked” person as a brother, according to Paul, admonishing him to change his course. This means that our relationship with him had changed because he had deviated from the Christian way. But to not “mix together” (synanamignymi) with him is very far from shunning him, something that has no basis in the Bible.
Admonishing disfellowshipped persons
The apostle Paul told Christians in Thessalonica that they should “continue admonishing” the “marked” person who did not accept the words of Paul, and with whom they were not to “associate with” (synanamignymi). But because the same word — synanamignymi (“associating with”) — is also used in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, in connection with those who are disfellowshipped, can we conclude that we should also continue to admonish disfellowshipped persons? My answer is clearly Yes because there is nothing in the Christian Greek Scriptures forbidding this.
The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, had articles discussing different sides of disfellowshipping, and these articles had many balanced observations. On page 465, we read:
20 Thus, Jesus’ own example protects us against adopting the extreme view of certain rabbinical writers in this matter of dealing with persons as “a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” We see, too, a close similarity between the treatment accorded these and the treatment set forth in the apostle Paul’s instructions regarding those disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation, namely, not “mixing in company” with such ones nor “even eating” with them. (1 Cor. 5:11) Clearly, treating an unrepentant sinner as “a man of the nations and as a tax collector” means there should be no fraternizing with such a one. But, as Jesus’ example shows, this does not require our treating such a one as an enemy or refusing to show common courtesy and consideration. Nor does it rule out the giving of help to those who want to correct a wrong course and gain or regain God’s favor.
Since the current GB rejects the conclusions of this 1974 Watchtower, and in keeping with the reasoning of that article, this means that the members of the present GB have the same extreme view of disfellowshipped persons as certain rabbinical writers had in connection with persons of the nations. The article shows that this view is wrong. To be sure, the article expresses a wrong view in connection with Matthew 18:15-17, claiming that the words “let him be to you just as a man of the nations and a tax collector” refers to disfellowshipping.[3] However, the words that a Christian should not fraternize with a disfellowshipped while continuing to show common courtesy and consideration to such persons are correct and represent good advice.
The meaning of “fraternize” is “be on friendly terms with someone; to associate as brothers”[4] This would also be a fitting description of the situation in Thessalonica. Christians should not fraternize with the person who did not accept the words of Paul, but they should “continue admonishing him as a brother.” The same must be true in connection with one who has been disfellowshipped.
When the article was published in 1974, I had just started the first of the 30 two-week courses for all elders in Norway where I was the instructor, and I had close contact with the brothers at Bethel. I remember that after we received the article, there was some discussion as to how we should treat disfellowshipped persons in accordance with the viewpoints of the article. For a short time, the view was that we even should study the Bible with disfellowshipped persons, just as we would study with inactive persons. But this view was soon abandoned.
However, the view of disfellowshipped persons changed after these Watchtower articles. For many years, the instruction was that once every year, the elders should contact disfellowshipped persons and ask them if they had considered returning to the congregation. This was a good arrangement, but it was discontinued a few years ago.
Jehovah’s discipline applied to those who have been disfellowshipped because of abuse of alcohol and hard drugs
The person in Corinth who had his father’s wife was disfellowshipped because he was “wicked.” However, after a relatively short time, Paul asked the congregation to reinstate the person, and this the congregation did. (2 Corinthians 2:5-8) The reason why he was reinstated is not stated. But we must assume that he had changed his course and no longer was practicing sexual immorality; he had been wicked, but now he was no longer wicked, i.e., he was no longer living in that sinful situation.
Exactly how the man was treated while he was disfellowshipped, we do not know. However, Paul speaks about “the rebuke given by the majority.” The word “rebuke” is translated from the Greek word epitimia. According to Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, the corresponding verb epitimaō has the meaning, “ Rebuke, reprove, censure also speak seriously, warn in order to prevent an action or bring one to an end; punish.” Because epitimia is a verbal noun, it expresses the meaning of the verb in a nominal way.
The context does not tell us which part of the verb expressed by the noun that Paul wanted to make visible. But it could be to rebuke the man in order to bring his action to an end. Because this was what really happened — the man ended his sexual immorality — thus, the meaning “to rebuke to bring an action to its end” has good support. The Greek word translated as “the majority” is comparative of the adjective polys “much, many.” The parsing is, positive: many, comparative: more, superlative: most.” Using the comparative form “more” in verse 6 is not possible in English. The rendering “the majority” would fit the superlative form “most,” but I cannot find a rendering that would express “the more” of the congregation, i.e., something between many and most. So we may keep “the majority,” while realizing that this expression includes more individuals than the Greek text says.
That only a limited number of the congregation’s members were behind “the rebuke” — the “majority”— shows that this rebuke could not be the disfellowshipping itself, or shunning, which the whole congregation would stand behind. But only a certain number of the congregation members rebuked the person, probably with the goal of bringing his sexual immorality to an end.
If this is correct, it means that the congregation had not thrown the man completely into the dark by shunning him. But many members of the congregation spoke with him and rebuked him. This would mean that the man was treated in about the same way as the man in Thessalonica whom the congregation members stopped fraternizing with, but continued to admonish.
I will now look at two groups of disfellowshipped persons where shunning clearly is the very opposite of Jehovah’s discipline, namely, persons who are alcoholics and who are abusers of hard drugs. Why can some persons consume vast amounts of alcohol over a long period of time without becoming alcoholics, while others become dependent on alcohol after only a short time’s use? The following quotation may give an answer:
Genetics and Addiction: Is Alcoholism Hereditary or Genetic?
Addiction is a chronic disease of the brain, affecting the reward and motivation centers, and for decades, scientists have argued about the genetic and hereditary components of addiction.
Alcohol use disorder, the medical term for alcoholism and alcohol abuse, has been linked to some specific genes. Having a close relative, such as a parent or sibling, who struggles with alcohol use disorder increases the chances that a person will also struggle with the same addiction.
While genetics and heredity are closely linked – because parents pass their genes down to their children, so children inherit the genes –from a medical perspective, there are some differences when discussing genetic versus hereditary diseases. A person with a genetic disease has an abnormality in their genome; an individual with a hereditary disease has received a genetic mutation from their parents’ DNA. When scientists debate whether alcohol use disorder is hereditary or genetic, they debate whether the condition stems from a larger set of genes that are passed down or the disease stems from mutations in some genes…
Genetics are 50 percent of the underlying reason for alcohol use disorder. If a person is predisposed to metabolize alcohol in such a way that the pleasurable effects are more prominent than feeling nauseous, overheating, or experiencing mood swings, the person may be more likely to develop alcohol use disorder.[5]
That some persons are predisposed to alcoholism is not an excuse for those who no longer have control over their drinking. But the information in the quotation may help Christians better understand Jehovah’s discipline in connection with those who have been disfellowshipped for their abuse of alcohol.
In The Watchtower of April 15, 2015, page 30, we read:
In many cases, disfellowshipping provides the discipline the erring one needs.
The words in the quotation may, in some cases, be true. But the problem is that shunning a person who has been disfellowshipped for abuse of alcohol will, in most cases, have the opposite effect of what the quotation shows? How so?
Using your imagination, try to empathize with his situation: The alcoholic has tried to quit his bad habit several times but has not succeeded. Now he has been thrown out of the congregation into total darkness. The elders have told him that he has lost Jehovah’s approval. He has lost all his friends and family, except those who live in the same household, and he has lost his hope! What does he still have to help him cope? The alcohol.
The wish of the elders, as seen in the quotation above, is that he would repent and return to the congregation. But they have taken away the very things that can help him achieve that goal—he has been cast into total darkness — the ideal environment for alcoholism to thrive. We should not minimize the fact that in addition to inherited sin, this person may be predisposed to the sin that he practices. Alcoholism is a chronic disease of the brain, and to cure a disease, a doctor and medicine are needed. In this case, the “doctor” may be a real doctor or his family and friends, the “medicine” being the support from these. But the elders have taken even that away! They have given up on him and have left him alone, without a “doctor or medicine,” i.e., without the support system of family and friends.
When we return to Jehovah’s discipline, the situation is clear. Family and friends should treat the person who is disfellowshipped for abusing alcohol with love and respect. The elders can only do so much because they have many duties in the congregation. But they can possibly advise the alcohol abuser’s family and friends about different kinds of help they can give.
In many situations, professional help can be good. And while the person gets such help, his family and friends can support him and help him to understand that Jehovah has not given up on him. And they must, in turn, help him to understand that he never must give up on himself even when relapses occur. This is not a devaluation of the action of disfellowshipping because they will show him that they cannot socialize with him, and they will let him know that he has to repent to regain his friendship of Jehovah. But the treatment I have described is practical Christian love in action, in contrast with the cruel and inhuman shunning treatment of disfellowshipped persons that is currently advocated by the members of the GB.[6]
Contrary to the view of the GB, addiction to drugs is not a disfellowshipping offense.[7] But addiction to hard drugs can lead to intoxication that may be subsumed under the disfellowshipping offense of “being a ‘drunkard’.” The important thing to realize when someone becomes addicted to hard drugs is that this is not planned. In a moment of thoughtlessness, a person may take the drug and then take another drug, and suddenly he or she is hooked. The body of the user of hard drugs develops the addiction to the drug without the consent of the drug user. The addiction to hard drugs is extremely intense and difficult to overcome, as we see in the quotation below.
When people become addicted to heroin, they crave the drug so strongly that, even when they know what consequences they face as a result of their heroin use, they are unable to stay away from the drug. This makes relapse to heroin use incredibly likely after detox. Often, those struggling with heroin addiction experience multiple episodes of relapse on their road to recovery.[8]
The situation with the user of hard drugs is quite similar to that of the abuser of alcohol. It is extremely difficult to quit using hard drugs without help from others. So again, family and friends should be ready to help the drug abuser, and as long as he or she wants to quit the bad habit, they should never give up and family and friends should never give up on them, even if there are relapses.
But the GB has led the organization in the opposite direction of giving help to abusers of hard drugs. As mentioned, the addiction to hard drugs is extremely strong. But when a person wants to quit the bad habit, there is one substance that can be of help, namely, methadone. This chemical is a long-acting opioid that fills the same opioid receptors in the brain that heroin and painkillers do. But persons who use methadone are not intoxicated, and in Norway, they are allowed to drive a car while using the drug. In the USA, there are about 100,000 persons who were addicts of hard drugs who today use methadone and are thereby able to live normal lives.
However, an article in The Watchtower of June 1, 1973, pages 336, 337, said that the use of methadone was not allowed and was a disfellowshipping offense. This law continued to be valid for 40 years, until 2013, when the GB suddenly decided that methadone could be used if it was prescribed by a doctor. We can just think of all the Witnesses who were disfellowshipped because of the abuse of hard drugs during these 40 years, but who were denied the help to quit the bad habit because of the extreme ever-shifting views of the GB. If friends and family could have supported these persons when they were trying hard to quit their habit, and if they had been allowed to use methadone, a great number of these addicts could have been helped to live quite normal lives and could have been reinstated in their congregations. This would have been an arrangement that could have been rightly accredited to Jehovah’s love and discipline.
Jehovah’s discipline applied to all those who have been disfellowshipped
The man in Corinth who was disfellowshipped lived an immoral sexual life, and therefore, the man qualified as being “wicked,” as Paul said. But when he repented, he was no longer considered wicked. Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 2:6 may indicate that a number of congregation members strongly admonished the man to change his course, which he did. There is absolutely no biblical reason why family and friends cannot do the same with persons who have been disfellowshipped because of habitual intoxication by alcohol or hard drugs.
As I show in the three articles in the category “Shunning not based on the Bible,” the practice of shunning is a human commandment that is not a part of “Jehovah’s discipline”. Jehovah does not use unnecessary force; he does not scourge sinners when he can help them to repent by gently admonishing them.[9] Setting the parameters of distance between a disfellowshipped person and the members of the congregation as stopping all socializing or fraternizing with him, while allowing the offering of admonition and help to come back to the congregation, would be a good blend of love and discipline. And most important: We must not forget that shunning is a human commandment without any basis in the Bible.
[1]. See my three articles in the category, “Shunning not based on the Bible.”
[2]. See my article “Causing divisions” in the category “Apostasy.”
[3]. See my article, “A man of the nations, a tax collector” in the category “Shunning not based on the Bible.”
[4]. http://www.finedictionary.com/fraternise.html.
[5]. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcoholism-treatment/symptoms-and-signs/hereditary-or-genetic.
[6]. See my article “Drunkenness” in the category “The eleven disfellowshipping offenses.”
[7]. See my article, “Abuse of medical and addictive drugs” in the category, “Gross uncleanness with greediness.”
[8]. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/methadone-addiction/pros-cons.
[9]. Hebrews 12:6 does not contradict this because the verb mastigoō (punish severely; whipping) can refer to the disfellowshipping itself, which is a discipline (paideuō; “to instruct, discipline”) and not to what happens after the disfellowshipping.
THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION
THE GOVERNING BODY HAS GIVEN THE ELDERS POWER OVER LIFE AND DEATH
The only way of receiving forgiveness for sins is by praying to Jehovah in the name of Jesus Christ. However, on the basis of the instruction from the GB, the elders have taken the place of both Jehovah and Jesus Christ without ever noticing it. I will elucidate that below. The Shepherd book, chapter 16, points 6-8 says:
-
In the Bible, two Greek verbs are used in connection with repentance. The first stresses a changed viewpoint or disposition. The second emphasizes a feeling of regret. Therefore, repentance involves a deep regret over a damaged relationship with Jehovah, remorse over the reproach brought upon God’s name and people, and sincere longing to come back into Jehovah’s favor. It includes a heart-motivated rejection of the bad course as something repugnant, hated. (Rom 12:9) Such an attitude should be demonstrated by “fruits that befit repentance,” making evident to an adequate degree a sinner’s claimed repentance. —Luke 3:8; it-2 pp. 770-777.
-
Judging repentance is not simply a matter of determining whether the wrongdoer is weak or wicked. Weakness is not synonymous with repentance. Neither should the judicial committee’s decision be determined by the notoriety of the wrong. The judicial committee should look for clear works of repentance commensurate with the wrongdoing. (2 Cor. 7:10, 11) The committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition, that he has zeal to right the wrong, and that he is absolute determined to avoid it in the future. Even if this is the individual’s first time before a judicial committee, he must give evidence of genuine repentance if he is to remain in the congregation.
-
The extent to which the person deviates from righteousness may be major or minor, and logically the degree of regret (repentance) ought to be commensurate with the degree of deviation. Was the individual caught off guard so that he momentarily succumbed to temptation, or did he plan to do wrong? Was he unaware of the gravity of his sin? Did he deliberately ignore counsel or warnings? Was it a single offense, or was it a practice? The more an individual repeats serious sin, the more that one reasonably gives evidence of being like wicked people who are “practicing what is hurtful.” — Ps. 28:3.
Most of the instructions in these quotations are human commandments that violate several Bible principles. I will discuss this in detail.
To remain in the Christian congregation, a sinner needs Jehovah’s forgiveness and not “works that befit repentance.”
The members of the present GB have not understood the basic truth that the only issue in connection with a Witness who has committed serious sins is whether Jehovah has forgiven these sins or not. 1. John 1:9 says:
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
In connection with the role of the elders in helping sinners, James 5:14, 15 says:
14 Is there anyone sick among you? Let him call the elders of the congregation to him, and let them pray over him, applying oil to him in the name of Jehovah. 15 And the prayer of faith will make the sick one well, and Jehovah will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
The role of the elders is to pray to Jehovah on behalf of the sinner and not to ask for “works that befit repentance.” It is Jehovah who will consider his repentance and who will raise him up and forgive his sins.[1]
No person whose sins Jehovah has forgiven can be rightly disfellowshipped from the congregation, which would amount to the elders rescinding or revoking Jehovah’s decision. On the other hand, persons whose sins Jehovah has not forgiven must be disfellowshipped. The requirement of “works that befit repentance” is irrelevant as far as disfellowshipping or not is concerned. What does that mean?
The real problem for the elders is that they cannot know whether God has forgiven the sins of a sinner. But there is a simple solution to this problem:
No member of the congregation who has committed sins, regardless of how serious they are or how often they have been committed, but who has changed his course and say that he has asked Jehovah to forgive him, can be disfellowshipped from the congregation.
Why is this important? Because the only way that the elders can know whether Jehovah has forgiven a sinner is to let him continue to be a part of the congregation and see if Jehovah is blessing his efforts to worship him in spirit and truth. If Jehovah blesses him, the elders will know that God has forgiven his sins. This does not create spiritual anarchy in any way, but it accords with the instruction of Paul that only persons who are “practicing lawlessness” and who are “hardened in wrongdoing” must be disfellowshipped. So, if a person says that he has asked Jehovah to forgive him and continues to practice lawlessness, he must at that point be disfellowshipped.
The Governing Body has authorized the elders to take the place of God
Instead of letting God, by his forgiveness or no forgiveness, decide whether a Witness must be disfellowshipped or remain in the congregation, the GB has given the elders the right to decide this. Therefore, the GB has put the elders in the place of God. And even the procedures by which the elders decide the destiny of sinners violate several Bible principles.
The wrong stress on repentance rather than on forgiveness of sins
Point 7 in the long quotation above says that in order to regain a good relationship with Jehovah, the sinner must reject the bad course as something repugnant. This is, of course, good advice, and then we read:
Such an attitude should be demonstrated by “fruits that befit repentance,” making evident to an adequate degree a sinner’s claimed repentance.
What the quotation says is a human commandment that nullifies the truth that only God has the right to decide who is forgiven or not — whether a Witness must be disfellowshipped or be allowed to remain in the congregation. I will elucidate that. First, I will discuss the expression, “fruits that befit repentance.”
It is true that to get God’s forgiveness, a person has to repent of his or her sins. But there is no requirement in the Christian Greek Scriptures for “fruits” or “works” to prove that; the only requirement is to stop doing the serious sin. In Matthew 3:8, John spoke to the Pharisees and Sadducees when he said, “Therefore, produce fruit that befits repentance.” They had not committed one particular sin for which they needed to prove their repentance by pointing to fruits that befit repentance. But John’s words referred to their whole life that they had to change if his baptism should have the right meaning for them. The words of Paul in Acts 26:20 is connected with the message he preached. Paul asked everyone to repent their previous ungodly actions and turn to God doing “works that befit repentance.” So, the expression “fruit/works that befit repentance” refers to what persons must do before they are baptized as Christians and not to the sins they do after they have been baptized.
If a servant of God had followed the admonitions of John and Paul and had become a Christian, his work and effort expended to become such were in themselves the “fruits/works that befit repentance.” If this person would commit a serious sin, and he had stopped doing this sin, he could, on the basis of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice, ask God to forgive his sin. And God would not require such a one to reconfirm his whole life by recreating the “fruits/works that befit repentance,” that were required to become a Christian, simply because he committed a serious sin. This requirement by the GB is a human commandment that has no basis in the Bible.
Moreover, the requirement of “fruits” or “works” to prove repentance will in a great number of instances lead to disfellowshipping. That is so because the elders, by virtue of the strict requirements of the Shepherd book, will be unable to find such works befitting repentance. And the disfellowshipping of many of these persons will prevent the elders from seeing evidence of what really is important — God’s forgiveness. If these disfellowshipped persons were allowed to remain in the congregation, the elders could, in a short time, see that Jehovah is blessing them, which would be evidence of his forgiveness. This means that the requirement of “fruits/works that befit repentance” contradicts the basic truth that only God can decide who will be forgiven for sins, and thus, remain a part of his congregation.
Different degrees of repentance
The GB has introduced several strict requirements in connection with serious sins. One is found in the Shepherd book points 7 and 8:
The judicial committee should look for clear works of repentance commensurate with the wrongdoing. (2 Cor. 7:10, 11)…
The extent to which the person deviates from righteousness may be major or minor, and logically the degree of regret (repentance) ought to be commensurate with the degree of deviation.
I cannot see any logic in this claim. The consequences of the serious sins mentioned by Paul are different. If a person gets drunk, he may not hurt anyone physically or materially, and the same is true if two unmarried persons who have sexual relations. If a person is extorting or exploiting someone, he may hurt the person materially. Serious sins may also have serious consequences. Adultery, for example, may lead to dissolved marriages and much suffering for men, women, and children — even to the loss of property and money.
However, I neither find it logical nor biblical that there are degrees of regret (repentance). A person who has committed a serious sin may not have anticipated the bad consequences. And if his sin has caused much suffering for others, he may be very sorry for that. But a sinner who wants to be a friend of God will regret his sin and repent. But the word “regret” in its biblical sense exclusively relates to the sin and not to any consequences of the sin.
To justify the view of “degrees of repentance,” point 7 refers to 2 Corinthians 7:10, 11. But this is a wrong application of the verses. The Watchtower of July 1, 1972, page 15, says:
The apostle shows the importance of determining this when he writes: “For sadness in a godly way makes for repentance to salvation that is not to be regretted; but the sadness of the world produces death.” (2 Cor. 7:10) So it is a life-or-death matter that our motive be the right one. Worldly sadness does not stem from faith and love of God and righteousness. It is born of regret due to failure, disappointment, material or social loss, the prospect of undergoing punishment or shame. Worldly sadness mourns the unpleasant consequences wrongdoing brings. But it does not mourn over the unrighteousness itself, or the reproach it brings on God.—Compare Jeremiah 6:13-15, 22-26.
These comments correctly point out that repentance can have two different qualities, “sadness in a godly way” or “the sadness of the world.”. But they do not say that there are different degrees of “sadness in a godly way” which means “repentance to salvation.” The word “commensurate” has the meaning, “corresponding in size or degree; proportionate,”[2] and the sentence “the degree of regret (repentance) ought to be commensurate with the degree of deviation” shows that the GB claims that there are different degrees of “sadness in a godly way.” That the elders should even attempt to measure the degree of repentance of a sinner is a human viewpoint that has no basis in 2 Corinthians 7: 10, 11 or in any other words in the Bible.
As I already have stressed, whether a Witness who is guilty of serious sins will be disfellowshipped or not is based on whether Jehovah has forgiven the sins of the person. The elders cannot know that, and therefore they must accept the word of any sinner that he has stopped with his serious sins and has asked Jehovah for his forgiveness. Interestingly, The Watchtower of September 1, 1981, page 25, while arguing in favor of degrees of repentance, contradicts its own logic (apparently, without realizing it) and arrives at the same conclusion I have presented above, all in the same paragraph. It says:
These Scriptural examples emphasize why the elders cannot judge merely on a display of emotion. Persons differ in their emotional makeup and control. So whether there are tears or not, the important thing is that the wrongdoer is touched at heart, having a spirit of agony or sense of deep regret over having offended Jehovah and damaged his relationship with God. (Ps. 51:1-4) Accordingly, the elders will likely inquire as to whether the wrongdoer has prayerfully confessed to Jehovah, seeking God’s forgiveness, as David did.—Ps. 32:3-5; 41:4; Jer. 31:19.
The logic used in this paragraph is nonsensical. Note that is starts out admitting that a person’s true feelings are not always commensurate with his or her outward displays of emotion. This makes clear that the elders cannot read a person’s degree of repentance from the outward evidence that might seem to be reflected in the wrongdoer’s demeanor. In keeping with this, what does the paragraph recommend the elders do instead? They should determine if “the wrongdoer is touched at heart, having a spirit of agony or sense of deep regret,” i.e., they are instructed to attempt to read even more subtle emotions within the person, emotions that the first part of the paragraph has just admitted cannot be determined by outward displays. What are the elders to do, given the impossibility of carrying out the paragraph’s recommendations? In utter contradiction of its initial instruction, the paragraph concludes by presenting this alternative solution: “Accordingly, the elders will likely inquire as to whether the wrongdoer has prayerfully confessed to Jehovah, seeking God’s forgiveness, as David did.”
Ironically, though not intended, this paragraph is a summary of my argument presented in this web article showing the futility of humans trying to read the degree of repentance within another person’s heart, and so it is Jehovah alone who decides if a person is forgiven. And since the elders cannot know if Jehovah has forgiven a wrongdoer, they must take the word of the wrongdoer at face value that he has asked God for forgiveness and that he is convinced that Jehovah has forgiven him, even as the last sentence in the above Watchtower paragraph ultimately concedes.
Therefore, only persons who at present are “practicing lawlessness” and who “are hardened in sin” must be disfellowshipped.
The wrongdoer himself must prove that his repentance is genuine
There is a basic principle in the jurisprudence of Norway and most other countries: A person is innocent until proven guilty. An accused person must not prove that he is innocent. But the prosecutor must prove that he is guilty. This principle is, of course, valid in the Christian congregations as well. But in connection with judicial cases, the GB has turned this principle on its head because in such cases, the accused person must prove that he is “innocent.” Even a person who has done one serious sin one time may be disfellowshipped. In that connection the Shepherd book chapter 16, point 7 says:
Judging repentance is not simply a matter of determining whether the wrongdoer is weak or wicked. Weakness is not synonymous with repentance. Neither should the judicial committee’s decision be determined by the notoriety of the wrong. … Even if this is the individual’s first time before a judicial committee, he must give evidence of genuine repentance if he is to remain in the congregation.
The words that a sinner “must give evidence of genuine repentance” both violate the principle that a person does not have to prove that he is innocent and that every person whose sins Jehovah has forgiven must be allowed to remain in the congregation. Moreover, the difference between “wicked” and “weak” in the quotation also shows the lack of understanding of the members of the GB in this matter. Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 5:13 that only wicked persons must be disfellowshipped, and this shows that no person who is weak but not wicked, should be disfellowshipped. It is true that weakness is not the same as repentance. But this is a superfluous argument because it is understood that “weakness” and “repentance” are mutually exclusive concepts. Weakness is the reason a person might commit a sin, whereas the option to repent becomes available only after a sin is committed. But as I have stressed several times, it is not the duty of the elders to look for repentance, let alone requiring that the sinner “must give evidence of true repentance.” It is Jehovah who will look for repentance and forgive the sins of the person.
The subjective nature of the committee’s decision
The last point referred to something that was concrete. The elders required evidence of genuine repentance, which must refer to particular works. However, point 7 transfers the issue in a different direction. It says:
The committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition, that he has zeal to right the wrong, and that he is absolute determined to avoid it in the future.
There are several problems with this requirement. If the judicial committee has a meeting with the accused person a week after his wrongdoing, there is hardly any time or basis to establish “works that befit repentance.” So, there may not be any tangible evidence on which to build in order for the elders to “be convinced”. This also shows that the requirement of such “works” is very problematic.
The sentence from point 7 can also be criticized from two other angles as well. 1) By using the word “convinced” in relation to the elders, the situation is moved from the objective realm to the realm of subjective assessments. Some persons are easily convinced, while others are by nature more skeptical. So the quoted words say that the life of a Christian who has committed a serious sin is dependent on the subjective assessments—whether they are convinced or not — of the three elders in the judicial committee. 2) The words of the quotation also place the elders in the position of God. They are now asked to judge whether the sins of the person have been forgiven or not, and if they feel they have not, they will “hand the person over to Satan.” And their basis for playing God in wielding the power over life and death are their own subjective assessments!
According to Luke 17:3, 4, Jesus said:
3 Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother commits a sin, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
The words of Jesus do not refer to serious sins against the law of God. But the principle expressed by Jesus can be applied to such sins as well. I will apply the requirement of the GB in point 7 to the words of Jesus and rewrite these words:
If a brother commits a sin, the innocent person must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed his heart condition in order to forgive him.
On which basis could the innocent person mentioned by Jesus be convinced that the sinner had a changed heart condition? There were no “works that befit repentance.” To the contrary, Jesus said the person continued with his course of sinning seven times. But just the same, he should be forgiven.
When accounts from the Hebrew Scriptures or the Christian Greek Scriptures are discussed, the present GB often ask, “What can we learn from this account?” And we may ask the same question, “What can we learn from the words of Jesus? We can learn three things, 1) The forgiveness of God is far-reaching, 2) Repentance is possible each time a sin is committed without any limit on the number of committed sins that can be forgiven, and 3) We need not “be convinced” that the person has changed his heart condition in order to forgive him, we just accept his word on that.
Few elders realize that by following the instructions from the GB they have put themselves in the place of God. This is so because they, in reality, decide whether God has forgiven the sins of the wrongdoer or has not forgiven these sins. But only God can forgive or refuse to forgive sins, and so the elders have no right to pretend that they know when God has forgiven or not forgiven the sins of a person. Because the GB has given the elders the power to decide whether the sins of a person are forgiven or not, the elders have been given the power over life and death.
The GB has put the elders in the place of God because,
· They are given the task is to assess whether a sinner has “works that befit repentance,” and based on their conclusions, whether or not the sinner can be forgiven. · However, only God can forgive sins, and he does not ask for works of repentance. The GB has made it hard for sinners to give evidence of repentance by introducing the following human commandments: · There are different degrees of repentance, and the sinner must show the subjective degree of repentance that the elders require. · The sinner must prove that he is innocent (= has the right degree of repentance). · If the three members of the judicial committee are not convinced (= subjective assessment) that the person has changed his heart condition, he will be disfellowshipped. |
I repeat the most important conclusion of the discussion above:
No member of the congregation who has committed sins, regardless of how serious they are or how often they have been committed, but who has changed his course and say that he has asked Jehovah to forgive him, can be disfellowshipped from the congregation.
But if this point is applied to a serious sin against the law of God, will that not lead to spiritual anarchy with the saying that “anything goes”? Or put another way: If a person tells the elders that he regrets his serious sin and that he has prayed to Jehovah for forgiveness, why should the elders accept that? They absolutely should accept this because only God who can forgive sins. Only if the sinner is allowed to remain in the congregation so that the elders can see if God blesses him, can they know that God has forgiven his sins. But could not the consequence be that the congregation would not be protected from corrupting influences by allowing a sinner to remain in the congregation? If the elders accept the words of the sinner that he has asked Jehovah to forgive him, and Jehovah has not forgiven him, little harm is done. Jehovah sees everything, and if a person has a wrong heart condition, that will become evident, as Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:24:
24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later.
On the other hand, disfellowshipping a Christian who has a right heart condition because the elders are not convinced that he has repented of his wrongdoing is a serious sin. But letting a Christian who has made a serious sin remain in the congregation when he says that he is repentant and has asked for Jehovah’s forgiveness will not do much harm. Moreover, as I have shown above, a Witness cannot be disfellowshipped for one or two serious sins. The argument about protecting the congregation from corrupting influences has been greatly overstressed. Each congregation consists of Christians who are imperfect and therefore are sinning all the time. But that does not represent corrupting influences, and sinners have the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. And there is one restraint that prevents the congregation from becoming unclean, as I will show below.
The instruction to the elders in the judicial committee contradicts the words of Paul
The restraint that will prevent a congregation from corrupting influences is expressed by the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:13:
12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”
The key word here is “wicked,” and I have shown above that the nine nouns and the one substantivized adjective in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 refer to persons who are permeated by one or more serious sins — a pornos is, for example, one “who is living a sexually immoral life” (The revised Danish NWT), and not a person who has committed sexual immorality one, two, or three times. To drive home this point, I will again quote the words of The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, page 411:
Therefore, the ones who are hardened in wrongdoing are the ones who are disfellowshiped. It is where serious violations of Jehovah’s righteous requirements have become a practice that this measure is taken. First John 3:4 states: “Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness.” So dedicated Christians who become practicers of lawlessness in the Christian congregation today are disfellowshiped.
This is an excellent description of the view of who should be disfellowshipped according to the Christian Greek Scriptures. But unfortunately, the members of the present GB do not any longer agree with the wise words in the quotation above: I bring one more time the quotation from the Shepherd book chapter 16, point 7 says:
Judging repentance is not simply a matter of determining whether the wrongdoer is weak or wicked… Even if this is the individual’s first time before a judicial committee, he must give evidence of genuine repentance if he is to remain in the congregation.
As I have shown above, the contrast mentioned between “weak” and “wicked” in the quotation is interesting because it is so wrong. Because Paul says that only wicked persons must be disfellowshipped, it means, contrary to the Shepherd book, that if a sinner is weak and not wicked he should not be disfellowshipped. No Christian who is not wicked deserves to be disfellowshipped.
The instruction that even a Christian who commits a serious sin for the first time can be disfellowshipped is extreme, and it clearly contradicts the meaning of the nouns that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10. These nouns show that only Christians who are living as sexually immoral persons, as drunkards, as thieves, and etc. deserve to be disfellowshipped. The instruction that one-time sinners can be disfellowshipped is the same as saying that Paul’s instructions are wrong, thus taking away a part of the Holy Bible.
What has been discussed is the constraint found in the Christian Greek Scriptures that will prevent corrupting influences in the congregation. Christians who “are hardened in wrongdoing” must be disfellowshipped from the congregation. And by this, the congregation will be kept clean. As mentioned, the contrast between the person who is permeated by a serious sin and a person who one or several times committed a serious sin is no longer accepted by the GB. As a matter of fact, the treatment of sinners among JW today is by several orders of magnitude stricter than it was in 1963 and for a large portion of the 20th century.
Only Christians who are “hardened in wrongdoing” (The Watchtower of July 1, 1963) and are “wicked” (1 Corinthians 5:13) deserve to be disfellowshipped from the congregation. The instruction of the GB that a Christian who has committed a single serious sin and who does not show the degree of regret that the elders expect will be disfellowshipped is a blatant violation of the Holy Scriptures. This instruction is an expression of extremism and flies in the face of Jehovah’s love and mercy. |
[1]. James 5:14-20 will be discussed in detail in the section “The true disfellowshipping regime.”
[2]. https://definition.org/define/commensurate/.
THE TRUE DISFELLOWSHIPPING REGIME
The two sections that follow are very important. They show how the situation would be in the Christian congregations if Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6 were followed and where only those who are “practicing lawlessness” and are “hardened in wrongdoing” are disfellowshipped. It also shows how the elders can help Witnesses who have committed serious sins one or several times but are not “hardened in wrongdoing” to regain their good relationship with Jehovah.
The right kind of discipline in connection with disfellowshipping
The application of Jehovah’s discipline in connection with disfellowshipping means that only on the basis of the 11 disfellowshipping offenses that are mentioned in the Bible, can a person rightly be disfellowshipped. And further, it means that only persons who are permeated by one of these disfellowshipping offenses, such as the man in Corinth, who for several months was living a sexually immoral life by having a relationship with his father’s wife, will be disfellowshipped.
This system will also preclude the elders from getting embroiled in situations where they must play God and decide whether Jehovah has forgiven a serious sin of a person or not. How so? Today, the situation is that if a member of the congregation, for example, is guilty of sexual immorality, he must appear before a judicial committee. Only when the elders of the committee “are convinced” that he has repented of his sin to the degree that they require will he be allowed to remain in the congregation. If they are not convinced that he has repented, he will be disfellowshipped.
Please note that the real issue is whether the sinner has prayed to Jehovah and has received his forgiveness. In that case, it would be against Jehovah’s will to disfellowship the person. The problem for the elders is that they cannot know whether Jehovah has forgiven the sinner. So, the GB has introduced a human test system where the sinner must face the crucible of a judicial committee in order to prove that he has repented. It is not enough for the elders that the sinner says he has stopped his serious sin and has asked Jehovah to forgive him. The elders require in addition that he has produced “works that befit repentance” as proof that he has repented. As I have shown above, these requirements have no basis in the Bible and are, in reality, against Bible principles.
In the system set forth by the apostle Paul, the elders need not consider whether a Witness has repented or not. Most of the subjective assessments in the present system would be nonexistent, and only concrete evidence would be considered. The reason for this is that only when there are two witnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession that a person is permeated by a serious sin, can a judicial committee be formed. And the duty of this committee would be to disfellowship only those persons who are hardened in wrongdoing.
On this background, and in view of the fact that the real issue is whether Jehovah has forgiven the sinner, the elders should, in every case where the sinner says that he has changed his course and prayed to Jehovah to forgive him, accept that — he will not be disfellowshipped. This is the only way the elders can know whether Jehovah has forgiven him. If the person continues in the congregations in the right way, they will see Jehovah’s blessing, and that will be their confirmation that Jehovah has forgiven him. If he returns to his sinful course and “practice lawlessness,” the elders will know that Jehovah has not forgiven him, and they will at that point disfellowship him.
So, the duty of the committee members is not to scrutinize or question repentance. Rather, their duty is to disfellowship a Witness who is hardened in wrongdoing and has, thus, become a practicer of serious sin. Still, even in such cases, there remains a possibility or opportunity for repentance, as I have shown. If a Witness has practiced a serious sin for a long time; for example, he has regularly had sexual relations with a woman with whom he is not married; then a judicial committee must be formed. But when he is invited to the judicial meeting, he realizes his situation, changes his life, and asks Jehovah for his forgiveness; what then?
Only God can forgive sins and not the elders, and so their subjective gut feelings about that private matter between Jehovah and the wrongdoer is irrelevant — it is simply not up to them to be convinced or not convinced that the sin of a person has been forgiven. And it is impossible for the elders to know what Jehovah has decided in this regard. This means that if a congregation member who has practiced sin for some time tells the elders that he has stopped his sinful actions, has repented, and asked Jehovah for his forgiveness, the elders have no other recourse but to take him at his word and not disfellowship him. There is no biblical requirement that he must have or produce at the judicial hearing “works that befit repentance.” But it is enough that he has one “work” — he has stopped with his sinful actions.
As I have shown above, that would not mean that the elders would allow a corrupting influence to remain in the congregation. Not at all! We can think of King Manasseh, who was guilty of more wicked actions than most other persons. But when he repented, he was forgiven in that moment. And we must again think of the words of Jesus at Luke 17:3, 4, that I also discussed above:
3 Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother commits a sin, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
The principle in Jesus’ words can be applied to all situations where a person practices sin. And most important: The Bible does not give the elders the right to question the words of a Christian who says that he has repented of his sins and asked Jehovah to forgive him. The scenarios that I have described above are not situations that I have conjured up calling for a weakening of Jehovah’s laws and principles, situations where these laws and principles are diluted. But these are situations that are based on the words of the apostle Paul that only persons who are permeated with serious sins and continue to practice these sins must be disfellowshipped. These are also situations that are based on the words of The Watchtower of 1 July 1963 that only those who are “hardened in wrongdoing” who are “practicers of lawlessness” must be disfellowshipped.
The important and noteworthy consequence of “Jehovah’s discipline” practiced in the biblical way, is that a significant portion of the power of the members of the GB and the elders are taken away. To be sure, if all the 37 disfellowshipping offenses that are not based on the Bible, but that have been invented by the GB, which is 77% of all such offenses, were discarded, a large portion of the power of the GB would instantly disappear. As for the elders, their ultimate power over the life and death of fellow Christians that the GB has given them, would also be taken away. The elders would no longer even consider, let alone decide, whether a Witness has a job that he must change under the threat of disfellowshipping; they would no longer consider the moral behavior of a great number of Witnesses in the light of the unclear and ambiguous laws of disfellowshipping that have been invented by the GB; they would no longer consider and decide whether a Witness who is guilty of a serious sin has actually repented or not; they would no longer make subjective assessments in a number of situations deciding whether a Witness must be disfellowshipped or not; and the number of judicial cases would be greatly reduced to just a few. The only scriptural assessments the elders would be required to make is whether there is proof that a Witness has been hardened in wrongdoing, and so must be disfellowshipped and whether a person who has been disfellowshipped can be reinstated.
The right kind of discipline in connection with sinners inside the congregation
When Witnesses who have committed serious sins one or a few times are not dealt with by a judicial committee, the consequence will not be that the congregations will have a number of persons who represent a corrupting influence, as I have shown above.
To illustrate the issue, I will use the following example: What will a Christian father and mother do if their young son misuses alcohol and becomes drunk several times, or they get a report that he has been shoplifting several times. Will they throw him out of the home? Certainly not. They realize that he has a problem, and as good parents they will try to help him with his problem. They will go to extreme lengths to help him, also when there are several relapses. And only when they are absolutely convinced that there is no hope that he will ever change his behavior and they feel that he is destroying the family, will they require him to leave the home.
What will Jehovah do with his dear children, persons who have dedicated their lives to him and have served him faithfully, if they deviate from his standards and have committed serious sins? Will he follow the example of the parents? What is “Jehovah’s discipline” and justice in such a situation? We find the answer in the words of James in 5:14-20.
14 Is there anyone sick (astheneō) among you? Let him call the elders of the congregation to him, and let them pray over him, applying oil to him in the name of Jehovah. 15 And the prayer of faith will make the sick (kamnō) one well (sōzō), and Jehovah will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.16 Therefore, openly confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed (iaomai). A righteous man’s supplication has a powerful effect. 17 E·liʹjah was a man with feelings like ours, and yet when he prayed earnestly for it not to rain, it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the land produced fruit. 19 My brothers, if anyone among you is led astray from the truth and another turns him back,20 know that whoever turns a sinner back from the error of his way will save him from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
I will analyze the words of James. The Greek word in verse 14 that is translated as “sick” (astheneō), has according to Louw and Nida the meaning “to be sick; to be in a state of incapacity or weakness.” Please look at the two passages below:
2 Corinthians 13:9
9 We certainly rejoice whenever we are weak (astheneō) but you are powerful. And this is what we are praying for, your being
2 Corinthians 12:10
10 So I take pleasure in weaknesses (astheneia), in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak (astheneō), then I am powerful.
The verb astheneō occurs 32 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In most cases, it refers to sickness, but in 2 Corinthians 12:10 and 13:9, it refers to being weak. In 12:10, the noun “weakness” is found in addition. James also uses the verb kamnō in 5:15. According to Louw and Nida, the meaning of kamnō is “to be ill, with a possible implication of being worn-out or wasting away,” and Mounce has the meaning “to tire with exertion, labor to weariness. The form is nominal (present active participle masculine singular), and NWT13 translates the word as “the sick one,” but it could have been translated as “the weak one.”
James has used two verbs that both can refer to being sick, being weak, and being weary.
Verse 15 has the verb (sōzō), which may throw some light on the issue. According to Louw and Nida, the verb sōzō means “to rescue from danger and to restore to a former state of safety and well-being; to cause someone to experience divine salvation.” According to Mounce, the meaning is “to save, rescue; to preserve safe and unharmed.” The verb sōzō occurs 99 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and in most instances, the meaning is “to save” in the religious sense of the word. James uses the word in 1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:20 in this sense, and therefore it is likely that it also has the sense of “save” in 5:15.
In verse 16, the verb iaomai is used. NWT13 translates it as “may be healed.” According to Louw and Nida, the meaning is: “to cause someone to become well again after having been sick,” and Mounce has the meaning: “to heal, cure, Mt. 8:8; Lk. 9:2; met. to heal, spiritually, restore from a state of sin and condemnation.” The verb is used 26 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, both regarding literal and spiritual healing.
Because James used the verb sōzō four times with the religious meaning of “save,” it is logical that he used this meaning in 5:15, with reference to what prayers will do. This means that the first clause in verse 14 with the verb astheneō may be translated as, “Is there anyone weak among you?” instead of “Is there anyone sick among you?” And the middle clause in verse 16 with the verb iaomai is better translated as, “that you may be restored” rather than “that you may be healed.” The issue James is discussing is the restoration to a saved condition of a Christian who has become spiritually weak or worn down.
There can be different reasons why a Christian becomes weak, including the committing of sins. James exhorts the Christians to “openly confess your sins to one another.” If a weak Christian had confessed his sins to the elders, what would they do? Would they say, “Have you repented of your sins?” and “Do you have works that befit repentance?” They would not ask such questions, and they would not open an investigation or official hearing to determine whether he had regretted his sins or not, and whether they could allow him to remain in the congregation. But they would pray for him, knowing that “a righteous man’s supplication has a powerful effect.” They cannot forgive his sins, but they trust that when this man comes to them and asks for help and confesses his sins to them, Jehovah will forgive him.
James does not specify which kind of sins he had in mind. However, all Christians are sinning every day, and they pray to Jehovah and ask for his forgiveness. There are several reasons to think that James had more serious sins in mind. One reason is that Christians would not be confessing minor sins to the elders. Another reason is that the weak Christian did not have the conviction to pray to Jehovah himself for forgiveness; he needed help from the elders so they could pray for him. A third reason is the use of the Greek word “to save” (sōzō) that evidently is used in the religious sense of gaining salvation. Minor sins would not have to do with a person’s salvation, but serious sins could prevent one’s salvation.
Supporting the view that James had serious sins in mind are the words in verses 19 and 20:
19 My brothers, if anyone among you is led astray from the truth and another turns him back,20 know that whoever turns a sinner back from the error of his way will save him from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
These two verses are the conclusion of the discussion that starts in verse 14. And there is one word that connects verse 20 with verse 15, which shows what prayer can do, and that is sōzō (“to save”). Verse 15 says the prayer of faith (or, “in faith”) will save (sōzō) the weak one (kamnō). The one who will be saved according to verse 15 is “the weak one,” and the one who is saved according to verse 20 is “him.” What is the antecedent of “him”? It is “a sinner.” And what is the sin of the sinner? Verse 19 says that the sinner “has gone astray from the truth,” and verse 30 speaks of “the error of his way.”
The verb planaō that is translated as “go astray” has the meaning “to no longer believe what is true, but to start believing what is false” according to Louw and Nida, and “lead astray; mislead; deceive” and passive: “go astray,” according to Mounce. James uses planaō in 1:16 with the sense “mislead, lead astray” and in 1 John 2:26 and 3:7 the word is used with the same meaning. This shows that to be guilty of planaō is a serious sin. In verse 20 the corresponding noun planē is used, and it is translated as “the error (of his way)” by NWT13. The meaning of the noun is a “behavior which deviates seriously from that which is morally correct” according to Louw and Nida. That the error that is expressed by planē is serious is seen by the following passages (NIV):
Ephesians 4:14
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful (planē) scheming.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion (planē) so that they will believe the lie.
1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood (planē).
It is clear that the sins that are mentioned in James 5:19, 20 are serious. The goal in verse 20 is that a fellow Christian might save the sinner that is mentioned, and the goal in verse 15 is that the prayer in faith by the elders will save the sinner. The similarities in the situation where a sinner called the elders to help him (verses 13-16) and in the situation where the elders were not called (verses 19, 20) is that both persons were on a course of practicing sin. In the last situation the sins were serious, and that was probably also the case in the first situation, because a person generally will not call for the elders in connection with minor sins.
If the situation that is mentioned in verses 19, 20 had occurred today, the person would not have been helped but would have been disfellowshipped, even if he had changed course immediately before the judicial hearing. But the focus of James was to help the person and not to throw him out of the congregation. This means that the words of James represent instruction on how the elders can help all members of the congregation who have practiced sins but have changed course, regardless of how serious the sins have been and how long they have been practiced. This is because only persons who still are practicing lawlessness and who have been hardened in sin must be disfellowshipped. All others should be helped to regain a good relationship with Jehovah. And as James said: “Whoever turns a sinner back from the error of his way will save him from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
The words of James corroborate the great love that the Christian couple that I used as an example showed for their son. When he committed several sins that were serious, they did not ask him to leave the home from the outset. But they did all they could to help him. Only after there no longer was any hope that he would accept the help and repent, did the parents consider requiring him to leave home. The words of James show that the Christian congregation should act in a similar way with serious wrongdoers.
The main point of this study has been:
No member of the congregation who has committed sins, regardless of how serious they are or how often they have been committed, but who has changed his course and say that he has asked Jehovah to forgive him, can be disfellowshipped from the congregation.
The words of James are a “recipe” showing how the elders should care for those who are mentioned in the quotation above. A member of the congregation who has committed a “multitude of sins” does not have to be disfellowshipped but can remain in the congregation. The elders and the members of the congregation should do all they can to help him, time and time again. Only after it becomes clear that there no longer is any hope of repentance, but the person has become “hardened in wrongdoing” and is “practicing lawlessness,” must he be disfellowshipped from the congregation.
CONCLUSION
To be sure, this is a radical article because it shows that the present regime of disfellowshipping among JW is corrupt, and the procedures that are followed violate a number of Bible principles. Jehovah’s Witnesses associate disfellowshipping with Jehovah’s discipline and love. However, this article has shown that almost every aspect of the disfellowshipping regime of Jehovah’s Witnesses today contradicts expressions and principles in the Bible.
That judicial committees with three elders are formed are not mentioned in the Bible. But the Bible corroborates this procedure as being based on scriptural principles. Apart from that, the reasons given by the GB for disfellowshipping contradict the Bible. For example; the rejection of the view that only persons wo “are hardened in wrongdoing” can be disfellowshipped contradict the Bible, disfellowshipping for one or a few serious sins contradict the Bible, the rejection of the requirement of two eyewitnesses to establish guilt contradict the Bible, and that the elders have power over life and death in deciding whether a person has been forgiven or not contradict the Bible.
The true Christian regime of disfellowshipping that is presented in Scripture solves all the basic problems in the present regime. Only persons who are “hardened in wrongdoing” are disfellowshipped, and judging the genuineness of a wrongdoer’s repentance is not needed. Persons who have committed a serious sin one or a few times should not be disfellowshipped. But the elders in the congregation should endeavor to help them to understand how they can change their course, and the elders should pray to Jehovah for them.
The true disfellowshipping regime is an outstanding example of “Jehovah’s discipline” that embodies both his love and justice.
APPENDIX
TWO DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE SHEPHERD BOOK
Actions against the secular authorities
The Watchtower of June 1, 1968, page 31, shows that violations of secular law represent disfellowshipping offenses.
Of course, if someone flagrantly violates secular law, gaining the reputation of being a lawbreaker, he would not be a good example and might even be disfellowshipped. (1 Timothy 3:2,7, 10) If lawbreaking was involved in causing another’s death, bloodguilt requiring congregation investigation might result.
The Watchtower of October 1, 1995, page 31, shows that subversive activity, which means attempts to overthrow structures of authority, represents a disfellowshipping offense. The article also mentions “antigovernment activity.”
Around the world, in the more than 200 lands where they reside, Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as decent, honest, law-abiding people. They are recognized for their staunch refusal to take part in any kind of subversive [overthrow structures of authority], antigovernment activity—unchristian action that can result in their being disfellowshipped, or excommunicated.
When the reasons for disfellowshipping are presented by the branch office, each disfellowshipping offense is marked with a scripture. The elders get a list with all disfellowshipping offenses with one scripture behind each of these. In the list for May 2005 it was written: “Antigovernment activity Romans 13:1”
Speaking against the GB’s view of non-biblical issues — here vaccination for Covid-19
The website jw.org has an article on vaccination against Covid-19, and we read:
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not opposed to vaccination. We view vaccination as a personal decision for each Christian to make. Many of Jehovah’s Witnesses choose to get vaccinated.[1]
This is a balanced view that accords with Bible principles. No one, including elders or the members of the GB, have the right to make rules for the Witnesses in connection with issues that are not mentioned in the Bible. However, a recent letter from the Governing Body makes such rules.
ANNOUNCEMENT
September 27, 2021
FOR ELDERS
-
COVID-19 Vaccinations and Respect for Superior Authorities: Out of concern and love, we are sharing the following important information. (1 Cor. 12:25) As a result of the ongoing pandemic, secular authorities in an increasing number of lands are mandating or strongly encouraging that their citizens be vaccinated for COVID-19. The recent Governing Body updates have helped Jehovah’s people understand the thinking of the faithful slave on this matter.
-
Branch offices have reported that some elders have voiced strong personal opinions against COVID-19 vaccination. Why is this of concern? Romans 13:1 says that “the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Also, the study note on Romans 13:5 says: “A Christian submits to human governments when a command does not contradict God’s laws.” Romans 13:2 states: “Whoever opposes the [secular] authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God.” Thus, elders should be careful not to voice personal opinions that contradict direction from the superior authorities. If an elder has been doing so, now is the time to stop. (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:4-7) Otherwise, he could become guilty of causing divisions in the congregation.
-
At Romans 16:17, elders are admonished: “Keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.” Thus, elders have a Scriptural responsibility to counsel any, including fellow elders, who cause divisions in the congregation. (Gal. 6:1) Circuit overseers will closely monitor the situation. We commend you brothers for “holding firmly” to God’s Word, promoting unity in the congregation, and taking the lead in showing “honor” to the secular authorities. (Titus 1:9; 1 Pet. 2:13-17) We thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and we take this opportunity to send our warm Christian love.
FOR COORDINATORS OF THE BODIES OF ELDERS
- Announcement for Elders: Please arrange for the body of elders to meet this week to discuss the announcement for elders along with the cited scriptures.
There are several important points in this letter. The most important one is that the members of the GB believe that they have the right to make rules for the Witnesses in connection with mundane issues such as vaccination. “The thinking of the faithful slave on this matter [vaccination for Covid-19]” (at the end of paragraph 1 above) is paralleled with “the teaching that you have learned [the Christian doctrines that Paul taught]” (at the beginning of paragraph 3). This means that “the thinking of the faithful slave” is identical with “the [inspired] teaching that you have learned.”
The thinking of the GB evidently is that all Witnesses should take the vaccination for Covid-19. Some elders have voiced strong opinions against the Covid-19 vaccination. If they do not stop voicing their opinions on this secular matter, they are promoting a teaching “contrary to the teaching that you have learned,” and they “create divisions and causes for stumbling” in the congregation. This is a disfellowshipping offense, according to the Shepherd book. And this means that to voice disagreement with the thinking of the GB even on secular, mundane issues can be easily twisted into a disfellowshipping offense.
That the GB uses the secular authorities as an alibi for their own thinking is strange. According to Romans 13:1-6, Christians must obey all the laws given by the secular authorities when they do not contradict God’s laws. It is true that the governments in many Western countries, such as in the USA, strongly have recommended everyone to be vaccinated. But such recommendations are not laws that Christians must obey. Romans 13:2 says: “Whoever opposes the [secular] authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God.” The letter quotes this passage and says: “Thus, elders should be careful not to voice personal opinions that contradict direction from the superior authorities.” This is a misleading statement because there is no biblical reason why Christians must obey any recommendation that comes from the secular authorities. Nor is there any scripture prohibiting a Christian from expressing his opinion for or against such a “recommendation”.
But should the elders be allowed to voice their personal opinions regarding vaccination in the congregation? Both the elders and the GB should be careful not to voice their personal opinions regarding any case where the members of the congregation must make decisions. However, one weakness with the letter is that its views are biased and one sided — it deals only with voicing opinions against Covid-19 vaccinations. Apparently, spreading one’s opinion in favor of vaccinations, even though doing so will cause the same divisions in the congregation, in connection with those who oppose it, is sanctioned by the GB and a fine thing to do, because it is in keeping with “the thinking of the faithful slave on this matter.”
But there are different vaccines with different properties. For example, one vaccine has caused several deaths in Norway, and the authorities stopped using this vaccine. In other countries, this vaccine is used and recommended by the authorities. Another vaccine contained some impurities, and a number of doses were trashed. Then we have the Chinese and Russian vaccines that have some problems. But they are recommended by the authorities in several countries.
There are many conspiracy theories in connection with Covid-19 vaccinations, and elders should not spread these theories in the congregation. And the elders should not generally speak against Covid-19 vaccines, because they would, in such a case, be making the same error as the GB, who generally speak in favor of Covid-19 vaccines. If an elder, for example, knows that the authorities in Norway stopped using one of the vaccines because of many deaths connected with it, he should be allowed to bring this information to the congregation members if they are offered this particular vaccine. And he should also be allowed to point to problematic aspects or side-effects of other vaccines.
The conclusion is that this letter reveals the true nature of the members of the GB. They demand that the elders and others accept their decisions even in cases that are not mentioned in the Bible, with an implied threat of discipline and even disfellowshipping for those who are not obedient.
[1]. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-vaccines-immunization/.