Skip to main content

“DISASSOCIATION” IS THE SAME AS “DISFELLOWSHIPPING”

By 14. January 2025January 23rd, 2025Disassociation

There is no difference between “disfellowshipping” and “disassociation.” In both instances a Witness is thrown out of the congregation because he or she has violated laws invented by the members of the Governing Body.

The claim that Witnesses who willingly and unrepentantly accept blood, or who, according to the laws of the Governing Body, have violated their neutrality, by their free will have disassociated themselves from the congregation because they no longer want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, simply is a lie.

 

THE CONCEPT OF “DISFELLOWSHIPPING”

The first time The Watchtower mentions disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, according to the Watchtower Index, is in The Watchtower of September 1946, page 266. But no details are given. It is also implied in The Watchtower of April 1, 1949, page 240. But the first time it is clearly mentioned is in The Watchtower of April 15, 1951, page 239. An immoral person is mentioned, and we read:

But God’s Word orders the disfellowshiping of such immoral person as an expression of His judgment against him.

The first time disfellowshipping was discussed in detail was in the articles “Keep the Organization Clean” and “Propriety of disfellowshipping” in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952. On page 131 we read:

3 We might wonder, then, since this congregation which God is developing or bringing into existence is based on love, why anyone should ever want to talk about disfellowshiping or putting people out of this congregation. There certainly must be some reason. Well, the reason for disfellowshiping is that some persons get into this congregation of God that do not love Christ.

The way a disfellowshipped person should be treated is mentioned pages 140 and 141:

10 At 1 Corinthians 5:11 (NW) Paul told the Christian congregation: “But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” No communion at all with these persons that are disfellowshiped or put out of the congregation. Why? Because this congregation of God must remain clean, undefiled, preserved for pure worship of the Most High. Consequently when that action of disfellowshiping is taken it really removes a person. He is out. Therefore all the congregation, all those who have dedicated their lives to God, should abide by the recommendation or the resolution on the part of the servants. They must support them.

14 Now meetings that are open to the public he can attend as long as he behaves himself and acts orderly. If that individual comes into a public meeting, say, a public lecture in a public auditorium, or Kingdom Hall, or city park, or a Watchtower study or a service meeting, it is public, the doors are open, and he may be admitted. If he comes into that meeting and sits down, as long as he is orderly, minds his business, we have nothing to say to him. Those who are acquainted with the situation in the congregation should never say “Hello” or “Good-by” to him. He is not welcome in our midst, we avoid him. If this one should be sitting in the Watchtower study and raise his hand, the chairman should never recognize him or allow him to make a comment. He is not one of us. He is not a recognized member in God’s congregation. Those who are informed and know the individual certainly should avoid him, have nothing to say to him. He has no privileges of service in the congregation whatsoever. He could go over to the book counter and get literature at the regular public rates, but the company should never give him books or magazines at company rates, because he is not one of us. What we would do for the public, for those in the Devil’s organization, we may do for that one.

In The Watchtower of December 1, 1952, there is a question whether it is right for a Christian to have business relationships with a disfellowshipped person. The answer on page 735 is:

The circumstances of each case might influence the answer. Generally speaking, it would be desirable for us to have no contact with disfellowshiped persons, either in business or in social and spiritual ways.

The quotations show that shunning and totally isolating the disfellowshipped started in the spring of 1952. No passage in the Bible was analyzed to show why the members of the congregation should shun disfellowshipped persons.

THE CONCEPT OF “DISASSOCIATION”

The term “disassociation” was coined by the members of the Governing Body in connection with neutrality violations.

THE ORIGINAL TREATMENT OF A BROTHER WHO VIOLATED HIS NEUTRALITY

When I started as circuit overseer in 1965, I receive the book Questions in connection with the service of the Kingdom (1961), which was written for judicial committees. On page 61 we read:

If a dedicated Christian accepts a political position or votes for political candidates, can he then continue to be a member of the congregation?

It is obvious that one cannot serve two lords, and a person who is voted in to a political position, will choose to walk in the ways of this world, and he cannot be viewed as one who belongs to the congregation. (Matthew 6:24) The congregation may be informed that his publisher card is removed from the card file of active publishers.

A person who voluntarily votes for a politician also takes part in the pursuits of this world. He returns to the world in order to be engaged in the pursuits of the world, and he therefore separates himself from the new world society. His card should be removed from the card file of active publishers. If he regrets his course and shows that he understands the right view of a Christian to the pursuits of the world, he may write a letter where he asks to be viewed as a publisher again.

The main point in the quotation above is that to take a political stance will compromise a person’s loyalty to God’s government, his heavenly Kingdom. This means that a person who violates his neutrality cannot at the same time be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Witnesses preach the good news, and every month they make a report of their preaching. This report is written on a card with the publisher’s name and is put in the congregation file. By accepting the report and keeping a person’s card on file, the congregation recognizes this person as a Witness and as a representative of the congregation in preaching to others.

If a member of the congregation would vote in a political election, he had, according to the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses, violated his neutrality. The action of the congregation would be that the assistant congregation servant would no longer accept field service reports from this person, and his publisher’s card would be removed from the congregation file. Please not that:

  • There would not be a committee of elders who decided that the brother no longer would be a member of the congregation.
  • The brother would not be disfellowshipped.
  • The viewpoint is not that the brother has disassociated himself from the congregation because he does not want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  • There is no advice to the congregation that this person must be shunned and totally isolated.

 The situation is very simple. The person is no longer a member of the congregation, and if he changed his mind, he had to apply for reinstation.

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CONCEPT “DISASSOCIATION” 

The words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:13 are: “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” On the basis of these words the terms “disfellowshipping” and “expelling” are made. This means that the two mentioned terms are based on the Bible. The term “disassociation” does not have any basis in the Bible. The first time this term is mentioned in the Watchtower literature is in The Watchtower of February 15, 1972. We read on page 124:

Jehovah’s allowing the individual to take whatever course he chooses is actually part of the test of integrity. The person has his freedom of will. If he takes a course violating his Christian neutrality, he is denying God as his Master, and he is walking out on God and his congregation. He is certainly not leading a dedicated life. The congregation is not the one that publicly disfellowshiped him. He takes himself out, dissociates himself.He was once saved from this “crooked generation,” but now he prefers to go back with it, doing as it does.

Such a person may feel that he can walk out and walk back in as he pleases. Not so, for the congregation cannot welcome with open arms a person who has denied God’s sovereignty over him as His slave. What place would God have for him in the “body” of the congregation? (1 Cor. 12:24, 25) Therefore the congregation, if giving him an approved place among them, would be condoning his disobedience and would be a sharer in his sins.​—Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Timothy 5:22.

The Watchtower of January 15, 1981, page 31, says that the concept “disassociation” “is applied basically to two situations,” 1) when a person decides “that he absolutely no longer wants to be a Witnesses,”  and 2) he “renounces his standing in the congregation by joining a secular organization whose purpose is contrary to counsel such as that found at Isaiah 2:4.”

Two other actions were later added to the concept “Disassociation,” and we read in the Shepherd book 18.3:

  • Making Known a Firm Decision to Be Known No Longer as One of Jehovah’s witnesses.
  • Joining Another Religious Organization and Making Known His Intention to Remain With It.
  • Willingly and Unrepentantly Accepting Blood.
  • Taking a Course that Violates Christian Neutrality.

How should the congregation view and treat persons who have “disassociated themselves”? The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, page 31 answers:

Aid to Bible Understanding shows that the word “apostasy” comes from a Greek word that literally means “‘a standing away from’ but has the sense of ‘desertion, abandonment or rebellion.’” The Aid book adds: “Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb. 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb. 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2 Pet. 2:15-22), the heeding of the ‘counterfeit words’ of false teachers and ‘misleading inspired utterances’ ( . . . 1 Tim. 4:1-3) . . . Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’ (1 John 2:18, 19)”

A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God’s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate. Even if they had been friends, when someone repudiated the congregation, apostatizing, he rejected the basis for closeness to the brothers. John made it clear that he himself would not have in his home someone who ‘did not have God’ and who was “not of our sort.”

The words that disassociated persons are a part of the antichrist, who were the biggest enemies of the Christians, show an equally negative view of disassociated persons. The book for elders Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (1991), page 102, shows that disassociated persons must be viewed and treated like disfellowshipped persons:

“Those who disassociate themselves should be viewed and treated in the same way as disfellowshipped persons.”

Thus, there is no difference between disassociated and disfellowshipped persons.

THE COSMETIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN  “DISFELLOWSHIPPING” AND “DISASSOCIATION”

In connection with the concept of “disassociation,” the readers are hoodwinked by the members of the Governing Body. The explanation they give as to the difference between disfellowshipping and disassociation simply is not true.  The book for elders “Shepherd the flock of God” (2019) 18.1 says:

Whereas disfellowshipping is an action taken by a judicial committee against an unrepentant wrongdoer, disassociation is an action taken by a baptized member of the congregation who no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 John 2:19: od pp. 142-143) In cases of disassociation, the body of elders should appoint a committee (not judicial) of three elders to consider the facts.

I will show that disassociation is the same as disfellowshipping by using three criteria:

  • Does the brother leave by his own will because he does not want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
  • Is the brother forced to leave?
  • Will he be allowed to stay in the congregation if he wants to stay?

The three questions are quite similar. But each of them illuminates one side of the issue. Two of the situations that the members of the Governing Body list as disassociation are when someone willingly and unrepentantly accepts blood, and when someone violates his Christian neutrality. I will use these as examples.

ACCEPTING A BLOOD TRANSFUSION IN A CRITICAL SITUATION

I know that a situation similar to the one I describe has happened:

A sister is taken to the hospital to give birth to a child. The child is born, but she also has severe hemorrhaging. The doctors are unable to stop the bleeding, and her husband is asked to allow a blood transfusion. But he refuses. This happens several times. Then the doctor takes the husband into the room where his wife is. She is unconscious and very pale. The doctor shows the husband all the towels that are soaked with blood, and he says: If your wife does not get a blood transfusion in a short time, she will bleed out and die. In this situation, the husband gives his permission, and the wife gets several bags of blood.

After this traumatic experience, the husband is summoned before a committee of three elders. Their goal is to find out the brother’s attitude, and they ask him whether he repents his action. The brother answers: “I realize that I have violated one of Jehovah’s laws by giving permission to give my wife blood transfusions. But it is impossible for me to regret my action and be repentant. My wrong act saved the life of my wife, and saying that I am repentant, is tantamount to saying that I regret that I saved the life of my wife. Honestly speaking, if I could go back and do it all over again, I would do the same thing to save my wife. Brothers, I know I shouldn’t feel this way, but I would be lying if I said otherwise. I still want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I hope that Jehovah will understand why I violated his law.”

 Let us consider the whole situation. The Shepherd book 18.1, that I quoted above, says that: “the body of elders should appoint a committee (not judicial) of three elders to consider the facts.” The quotation says that this is not a judicial committee. But is there any difference between this committee and a judicial committee? Absolutely not.

A judicial committee is formed when a brother or sister has committed a sin that the Governing Body describes as a disfellowshipping sin. The purpose of the judicial committee is to help the sinner, if possible, and to find out whether the sinner repents the sin. If the committee finds that the sinner repents the sin, he or she will be allowed to remain in the congregation. If they do not find any repentance, he or she will be thrown out of the congregation.

The purpose of the “non-judicial” committee is exactly the same. They speak with the brother in order to find out whether he repents that he accepted blood or not. They make a decision in exactly the same way as the judicial committee. If they find repentance, the brother will be allowed to remain in the congregation, if they do not find repentance, they will make the decision that he has disassociated himself from the congregation because he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But this is pure gobbledygook because their words do not mean what they say.

Let us again look at my example. The brother authorized blood transfusions for his wife in a critical situation where he believed she would die without blood. He defended his action and pointed out that he could not regret his action. But he asked the elders to understand his position and let him remain in the congregation. But the requirement from the Governing Body is clear. When there is no repentance, the elders must conclude that he voluntarily has left the congregation.

Let us ask the three questions:

Did the brother leave the congregation by his free will because he no longer wanted to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? No!

He wanted to remain in the congregation. But would he be allowed to do that? No!

Would he be forced to leave the congregation? Yes!

The fallacy of the claim that the mentioned action is a voluntary disassociation is seen by the fact that during the 20th century, a person who accepted blood without regretting it was disfellowshipped. But in the 21th century, it is called “voluntary disassociation.”[1]

Because the action is the same, but it has two different names, the two different names must refer to the same thing.

VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY DECIDED BY THE ELDERS

In the early 1950s, there were several articles in The Watchtower stressing that The Watchtower Society did not have any advice as to what kind of secular work a Christian would choose. This was a decision each one had to make on the basis of his or her conscience.

However, this changed in the middle of the 1970s. I will now consider the issue of nonneutral work by referring to the article, “Doing Work with a Good Conscience before God and Men” in The Kingdom Ministry of September 1976. This article does not discuss nonneutral work specifically, but this is implied. And the principles discussed can also be applied to nonneutral work. On page 1, a basic question is posed:

The principal question is: “Does the work or activity to be performed in itself constitute an act condemned by God’s Word? Or, if it does not, is it nevertheless so directly linked to such condemned practices that it would make those doing such work actual accomplices or promoters of the wrong practice?” In such cases, Christian conscience should surely cause them to reject such employment. (the author’s italics)

The questions are important, and the conclusion that if a work ‘accomplices or promotes a wrong practice,’ the Christian should reject such employment is of course, fine. The article points out that the choice of employment is a personal one based on the conscience of the person.

But what if the conscience of a brother allows him to have particular employment, but the elders in the congregation think that his choice of employment is wrong and, therefore, overrule his conscience? On page 3, we read:

The congregation’s responsibility

Where a brother engages in employment that clearly violates God’s law, the congregation and its elders rightly become concerned on the matter. Where work or a product thereof is condemned in the Scriptures, or is such as to make one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing, the elders should first endeavor to help the person see the wrongness of his course. In such cases where the connection is definite and evident, it should be possible to make what the Bible says clear to him and enable him to see why it does indeed apply to him. It may however, take a number of discussions, perhaps over a period of some weeks, to help him see the point and give prayerful consideration to what has been brought to his attention. If it is definitely established that his employment violates Christian principles and he, nevertheless, insists on continuing in it, he may be disfellowshiped from the congregation.

The quotation refers to work that makes “one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing,” and then it speaks of a situation “where the connection is definite and evident.” So, the question naturally arises: How can we know that “the connection is definite and evident”? Who decides that? The article shows that the decision is made by the elders in the congregation, and they will help the brother to accept their interpretation of the situation. If the brother cannot accept that his work makes him an accomplice or promoter of wrongdoing, the brother will be disfellowshipped.

The article does not define what kind of work is included in the terms “condemned in the Scriptures” and “wrongdoing.” But because nonneutral work is supposed to be condemned by the Scriptures, this kind of work must be included in the terms. This means that a person who in 1976 was guilty of nonneutral work at his place of secular work would be disfellowshipped— it is not said that he had disassociated himself from the congregation.

A Witness who in 1976, was engaged in nonneutral work and refused to change his occupation would be disfellowshipped. He would not be viewed as one who had voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation.

I will now apply the principles and the conclusions of the article to nonneutral work that is mentioned in the Shepherd book 18.3 (4):

If his employment makes him a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities, he should generally be allowed six months to make an adjustment. If he does not, he has disassociated himself.

What kind of employment makes a person “a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities?” The statement is carefully worded to omit any specific kinds of employment in order to avoid problems with the authorities. However, the book How to Remain in God’s Love (2008), pages 60-63, shows that nonneutral activities include activities that may give support to political or military activities.

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 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 part of the production, the elders of his congregation decide that the brother is an “accomplice of nonneutral activities.” Therefore, they discuss the situation with him, and he is given an ultimatum: “You have six months to find a new job. If you, after that time, continue in your old job, this will be evidence that you have voluntarily disassociated yourself from the congregation because you do not want to be one of Jehovah’s  Witnesses 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 not a substantial 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 and sells tobacco and blood pudding would be guilty of promoting those things. Therefore, I will continue in my job, and I will continue as a member of the congregation.”

After six months, the brother will not leave the congregation voluntarily, but he will be kicked out of the congregation on the pretext that he has voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation. Under no circumstances will the brother be allowed to remain a part of the congregation when the elders have decided that his work makes him an accomplice in nonneutral activities.

Let us again ask the three questions:

Did the brother leave the congregation by his free will because he no longer wanted to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? No!

He wanted to remain in the congregation. But would he be allowed to do that? No!

Would he be forced to leave the congregation? Yes!

There can be no doubt that the brother was thrown out of the congregation against his will.

The book “Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock,” page 140, shows that a Witness who in 1991 was engaged in a nonneutral work and refused to change his occupation would not be disfellowshipped. But he would be viewed as one who had voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation because he did no longer want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Here we have the oxymoron:

Voluntarily <—>to be kicked out

 DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND DISASSOCIATED PERSONS ARE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY

I will again show that there in substance is no difference between disfellowshipping and disassociation, only in name. The book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” (2019) 18.1 says:

Whereas disfellowshipping is an action taken by a judicial committee against an unrepentant wrongdoer, disassociation is an action taken by the baptized member of the congregation who no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 John 2:19: od pp 142, 143). In cases of disassociation, the body of elders should appoint a committee (not judicial) of three elders to consider the facts.

What the quotation says is correct if, and only if, a person writes a letter saying that he does not want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses anymore. But it is not correct in situations like the two described above, where the elders have decided that the occupation of a brother makes him a “clear accomplice in nonneutral activities” or when a person accepts blood without regretting it. The formulation that if a brother has not changed his occupation after six months, he has voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation is ludicrous. The real situation is that he will be kicked out of the congregation against his will.

The difference between “disfellowshipping” and “disassociation” is just cosmetic. The difference described in the Shepherd book simply is not true!

There is absolutely no substantive difference between a committee of three elders with the designation “judicial committee,” and a committee of three elders, only called “the committee,” when the ruling of both committees is exactly the same —the brother or sister is kicked out of the congregation and subsequently shunned. If a judicial committee of three elders kicks a brother out of the congregation, it is labeled a “disfellowshipping.” but if a “non-judicial” committee of three elders kicks a brother out, it is designated “disassociation.” Therefore, disassociation is, to all intents and purposes, exactly the same thing as being disfellowshipped. Despite its cosmetic label, persons who are “disassociated” are kicked out of the congregation against their will and subsequently treated as if they did not exist, exactly as done to disfellowshipped ones.

The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 23, says that disassociated persons should be treated like those who have been disfellowshipped (above). This was reiterated in The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 27 (top middle), in Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (1991), page 102 (bottom middle), and Organized to do Jehovah’s will (2005), page 154 (below):

6 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.

In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khaiʹro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” ​2 John 9-11

10 We can be just as sure that God’s arrangement that Christians refuse to fellowship with someone who has been expelled for unrepentant sin is a wise protection for us. “Clear away the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are free from ferment.” (1 Corinthians 5:7) By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views.​—Hebrews 12:15, 16. (the author’s italics)

In contrast, if a person who is a Christian chooses to disassociate himself, a brief announcement is made to inform the congregation, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person.

“Those who disassociate themselves should be viewed and treated in the same way as disfellowshipped persons.”

When disfellowshipped and disassociated persons both are viewed and treated in the same way, there is not difference between the two. Table 1.1 shows that there is no difference:

Table 1.1 A comparison with a disfellowshipped and a disassociated person

 

Disfellowshipped persons

Disassociated persons

1 A committee of three makes the decision. A committee of three makes the decision.
2 The person is not allowed to remain a Witness if he wants to do that. The person is not allowed to remain a Witness if he wants to do that.
3 The person is shunned. The person is shunned.
4 Repentance is necessary to be reinstated. Repentance is necessary to be reinstated.
5 A written application is necessary to be reinstated. A written application is necessary to be reinstated.

No data exist that can question the points in Table 1.1. Disfellowshipping and disassociation are in all respects similar — the only difference is the name.

[1]. See my article «Disassociation 1 (II) Willfully and unrepentantly accepting blood.”

CONCLUSION

Why did the members of the Governing Body in 1972 coin the new concept “disassociation”, and why have they made such great efforts to hide the fact that disfellowshipping and disassociation are interconvertible? There may be two reasons, 1) to avoid criticism for actions that the public view as appalling and scandalous, and 2) to avoid criminal prosecution.

Just think of the example described above with the husband who authorized blood transfusions and saved the life of his wife. If the public would know that the husband was disfellowshipped because he saved the life of his wife, that would cause an outcry. Moreover, if the husband was disfellowshipped, he could sue the congregation and claim damages. When the elders say that he voluntarily left the congregation because he did not want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, all problems are solved.

The situation is similar in connection with violations of one’s neutrality. If a Witness is disfellowshipped because his work supports the armed forces or because he has voted in a political election, the authorities may sue the congregation for a violation of the laws of the country. But if a brother leaves the congregation in these situations, all problems are solved.

Rolf Furuli

Author Rolf Furuli

More posts by Rolf Furuli

Leave a Reply