Skip to main content

THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY AND THE GOVERNING BODY

By 22. January 2025February 10th, 2025The Governing Body

There is a pattern in the actions of the Governing Body to make laws that all Witnesses must follow and then to shift the responsibility for these laws to individual Witnesses. In this way, no one can accuse the members of the Governing Body of wrongdoing because the wrongdoing is done by individual Witnesses on their own initiative.

This is what can be called “the alternative reality,” which means that the members of the Governing Body tell the Witnesses what the situation is. But what they tell is not the true reality, it is an artificial reality that does not fit the facts on the ground. But this alternative reality takes the responsibility away from the members of the Governing Body and puts it on the shoulders of individual Witnesses.

To use an example from the Hebrew Scriptures: The alternative reality means that the members of the Governing Body use “two sorts of weights and two sorts of eʹphah measures” (Proverbs 20:10)

 

THE APPLICATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “alternative reality” in this way:

(in a computer game) an imaginary world in which players can move around, communicate, and react to each other.

(in stories) a world that is like the world we know, but that is also different from it in important ways.

 a state of things that does not really exist, but that some people believe to be real or true.[1]

The Norwegian newspaper Dagen of January 18, 2024, had an article about a couple who had left Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of their reasons for leaving was that persons who had been disfellowshipped and who had resigned were shunned and totally isolated. The Scandinavian branch office was asked to comment on this situation, and Jørgen Pedersen, one of those who represents the Governing Body in connection with Norwegian issues, made the following comments:

“Each member will, on the basis of his personal conscience and circumstances, decide if he will restrict or stop having social contact with former members in the light of the command in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 “to stop socializing with” such a person. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not force the members of the congregation to do this. The elders in the congregation do not control the personal lives of the members of the congregation, and neither do they control the faith of each witness of Jehovah. Each member of the congregation who restricts or stops his social relationship with one who is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the congregation does this on the basis of his free will and choice, based on his personal religious conscience.”

All who know Jehovah’s Witnesses know that what Pedersen wrote is not true — it is an alternative reality. That disfellowshipped persons and those who have resigned must be shunned and totally isolated is demanded by the Governing Body. The rule given by the Governing Body is that if a Witness has contact with a person who has been disfellowshipped or who has resigned, the elders will speak with him or her and ask him or her to stop having contact. If the contact continues, the person will be disfellowshipped.  (“Shepherd the Flock of God” 12.17 (1))

What Pedersen wrote factually is a lie? But did Pedersen really lie to his audience with open eyes? I know Pedersen personally because we were elders together for two years in the Majorstua congregation in Oslo. Issues dealing with what the quotation says were discussed in our body of elders, and therefore, I know that Pedersen, at that time, knew that what he now wrote is not true.

What has changed? Pedersen was acting as a part of the alternative reality. What does that mean? In different countries, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been accused of treating disfellowshipped members and those who have resigned in a bad way. In the Czech Republic, this is one reason why the authorities have threatened to revoke the registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In Norway, the authorities have revoked the registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Court of Appeals will soon make a decision regarding this issue.

The quotation above indicates the tactic used by the members of the Governing Body and the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses to avoid any responsibility as to how disfellowshipped members and those who resign are treated.

If there is no demand from the Governing Body that all Witnesses must shun and totally isolate disfellowshipped persons and those who have resigned, and how much contact each Witness will have with the mentioned persons is a decision that each one personally will make, then the Governing Body and the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused.  But this is the alternative reality because it is not true.

I assume that this alternative reality is something the legal department at the headquarters in the USA has created in order to avoid legal problems. This alternative reality has been conveyed to those who are representatives of the Governing Body at the branch offices. The requirement of these is blind loyalty, and they believe what the Governing Body says without asking questions. I think that Pedersen believes what he wrote in the quotation and that he simply has suppressed the knowledge he previously had about the demand for shunning and total isolation.

  1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/alternative-reality.

DISASSOCIATION FOR NEUTRALITY VIOLATION AND THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

I can hardly think of a better example of the alternative reality than disassociation, a concept that is not found in the Bible that was coined in 1972. I make the following quotation from “Shepherd the Flock of God” 18.1. 3 (4):

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.

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.

These words are authorized by the members of the Governing Body. The words in the first part of the quotation are not true, and therefore:

The members of the Governing Body are lying with their eyes open.

In situations when Witnesses accept blood or do something the Governing Body views as a violation of neutrality, it is a lie that the Witnesses have disassociated themselves because they no longer desire to be Jehovah’s Witnesses. The fact is that they have been thrown out of the congregation. I give two examples from the book Correspondence Guidelines, page 45, in connection with the violation of one’s neutrality:

EXAMPLE: A brother learns that a small portion of the equipment he normally makes on a line producing commercial aircraft will now be diverted to a use out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4.

Comments: If only a small portion of what he produces will now be diverted to nonneutral purposes, an adjustment in employment would not be required, although his own conscience might motivate him to seek work that does not require that he do anything objectionable. He might continue to enjoy special privileges as long as he has the respect of the congregation.

However, if he agreed to do an increasing amount of the nonneutral work, though most of what he produced was still not objectionable, he might get to the point where he would be disqualified for special privileges. (w64 11/15 703) Moreover, if what he produced that was for a purpose contrary to Isaiah 2:4 increased to the point that it was evident that he was significantly contributing by his intellect and skills to nonneutral activities, he could not remain a part of the neutral congregation unless he made adjustments in his type of employment. (w67 6/15 369) Determinations in such situations are not made according to a percentage formula, as if one half or more of the work’s being unscriptural would require an adjustment and less than one half would require no adjustment. Each person should be encouraged to make decisions in life that do not suggest that he is seeing how close to the line of unacceptability he can walk

This is an excellent example of how the alternative reality is practiced because it shows that what is said to be the free will of a brother in reality is the dictate of the Governing Body through the elders.

The first decision of the Governing Body related to the quotation is that any work that benefits the armed forces is the same as a compromise of Christian neutrality. This does not have any basis in the Bible because the followers of Jesus should treat all humans in the same way. (Matthew 5:44-48) The army officer Cornelius, and probably some of his soldiers, became Christians and were baptized. Would a brother who, for example, regularly sold fruit to these soldiers compromise his neutrality? It would be ridiculous to claim that because God approved Cornelius when he was an officer. Today, such a brother would have been thrown out of the congregation.

The quotation above outlines three different stages:

  • A brother does a small portion of work that benefits the military. He can continue to be a member of the congregation.
  • The amount of work he does benefiting the military is increasing. He will be disqualified for special privileges in the congregation.
  • The amount of work he does that benefit the military is significantly increasing. He must change his job within six months or be thrown out of the congregation.

The point we are discussing are situations where the members of the Governing Body say that a person disassociates himself from the congregation because he does not want to be one of Jehovah’s witnesses. On this background we must ask: Who are making the decisions regarding the three different stages? Is it the brother himself, or is it others?

Please note the expressions in blue:

Would not be required.

Would be disqualified for special privileges.

He could not remain a part of the neutral organization.

Determinations in such situations.

These are not expressions referring to the free will of the brother. But the expressions refer to decisions made by others, by the elders.

 Please look at the last two expressions: The elders are the ones who decide whether the work of a brother that benefits the armed forces has increased so much that he has violated his neutrality. And the elders are those who decide “that he cannot remain a part of the neutral organization,” which means that he will to thrown out of the congregation. And then comes the lie:

When the elders have decided that the brother cannot remain in the neutral organization, they give him six months to change his job. If he does not do that, they say that he has resigned from the congregation by his own free will because he no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

I will use an example to illustrate the situation:

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. The military has started the work of repairing all their old vehicles, and the delivery of engine parts to the military has increased significantly.

The elders have been informed about this. 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 no longer do not want to be a Witness any longer.”

The brother says that he disagrees with the elders. He says that the increase in the delivery is a part of a campaign to repair all military vehicles, and the need for engine parts will decrease next year. Moreover, while the delivery has increased, it is still only a part of the production. So, his conscience is clean, and he will not change his job.

When six months have ended, this brother will not be allowed to be a part of the congregation even if he wants to be. But he will be thrown out of the congregation. And the situation is oxymoronic: He is thrown out of the congregation by his free will.

Voluntarily <—> to be kicked out of the congregation.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

The situation described above has one element of interpretation: How much is a “significantly increase”?  And the elders will decide that. Now I will refer to an oxymoronic situation where there is no element of interpretation.

I make a quotation from the book Correspondence Guidelines, page 46:

EXAMPLE: Two baptized women work as maids on a military base. One is employed by a family in their home. The other is employed to clean the barracks.

Comments: The first woman concludes that she can accept employment by the family and not be in conflict with Isaiah 2:4. She reasons that despite the location of her work and the fact that the breadwinner of the family is involved in work out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4, she is providing a common service for individuals in a home and is not employed directly by an organization that is in conflict with the Scriptures. (2 Ki. 5:2, 3, 15-19; Phil. 4:22) She may continue to be a member of the congregation, but if she seeks the privilege of pioneer service, consideration may have to be given to how her employment is affecting others and whether she is viewed as a good example.

The other woman, by her regular work, is performing a needed service that facilitates the overall objectives of an organization whose purpose is out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4. In addition, she is paid by that organization, works on its property, and is regularly doing work that supports that organization and its objectives. She is in conflict with Isaiah 2:4. Unless she makes a change in her employment, she will be viewed as having dissociated herself.

The situation here is clear. A sister who is doing cleaning work at a military base has violated her neutrality. Where is her free will in this situation? It is nowhere. The demand from the Governing Body through the elders is that she changes her occupation, as the last sentence says, within six months. If not, “she will be viewed” as one who has disassociated herself from the congregation because she no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But as we understand, she has not disassociated herself, but she has been thrown out of the congregation.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

DISASSOCIATION FOR BLOOD TRANSFUSION AND THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

In the 15 years up to 1961, no judicial committee would be formed if someone accepted blood. But then there was a change. The book Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 183, says:

Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The decision made by the members of the Governing Body that Witnesses who accepted blood without regretting it would be disfellowshipped lasted about 40 years. But then the change was made that persons who accepted blood should not be disfellowshipped. But the view was that they had disassociated themselves from the congregation because they no longer wanted to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

I am not aware of any official statement of the change from disfellowshipping to disassociation in connection with blood. But I have a list of disfellowshipping offenses published by the branch office from 2005. This list says that accepting blood is the same as disassociation and not disfellowshipping.

I will illustrate the situation in the following way:

 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.”

His wish to remain in the congregation is not accepted. But he is thrown out of the  congregation on the pretext that he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

I will return to the writing of Jørgen Pedersen in the newspaper Dagen on January 18, 2025, that I quoted at the beginning. The claim was that it is not the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses who demand that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons must be shunned and completely isolated. There is no such rule or law. But each Witness will, on the basis of his or her conscience, decide how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons.

The same false picture of the treatment of disfellowshipped and disassociated persons was presented by Kåre Sæterhaug from the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the case between the Norwegian state and Jehovah’s Witnesses in the district court in January 2024. And now we can see a motive. One of the reasons why Jehovah’s Witnesses lost the case in the district court was that they shun persons who have resigned. Both the Norwegian law and the Declaration of Human Rights say that any person can become a member of a religion and resign from a religion without any pressure or coercion.

If it were true that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have any law requiring shunning and total isolation of disfellowshipped and disassociated persons, but each Witness will, on the basis of his or her conscience, decide how much contact he or she will have with the mentioned persons, the organization cannot rightly be accused of pressure or coercion in connection with those who want to resign.

There is a similar motive in connection with neutrality issues. If a Witness who voted at a political election, or a woman who did cleaning work at a military base, were disfellowshipped, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses could be sued in different countries because they had violated the law. But if it can be said that those who do this, have disassociated themselves from the congregation because they no longer want to be Jehovah’s Witnesses, no accusation can be made against the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The situation is also similar in connection with blood transfusion. We can think of the situation with the Witness who authorized blood transfusions for his wife when the doctors said that she would die without receiving blood transfusions. If the man had been disfellowshipped because he saved the life of his wife, and this became public, that would create a strong negative view of Jehovah’s Witnesses among the public. Moreover, the man who was disfellowshipped could sue Jehovah’s Witnesses for damages. All problems are solved when the Witnesses say that the man left his congregation because he no longer wanted to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Thus, the motive behind the creation of a fictive reality, a reality that does not exist, is to avoid problems from individuals and from authorities because of the true reality that exists.

THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY ARE MANIPULATING INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES

The book How to Remain in God’s Love (2017) page 92, says:

10 Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that “abstaining from . . . blood” involves more than not eating or drinking it. It means not accepting blood transfusions, not donating blood, and not storing our own blood for transfusion. It also means not accepting transfusions of any of the four main parts of blood —red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma.

What is the basis for the words “Jehovah’s Witnesses understand”? It is not the Bible because what Christians must abstain from, according to the Bible, is “blood” (Hebrew: dam and Greek: haima), which refers to the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals. It is the members of the Governing Body who have decided that the Witnesses must abstain from red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma, as well as from storing one’s own blood for transfusion.

By using the words “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” we can see a tendency to take the responsibility away from themselves and put it on individual Jehovah’s Witnesses — “Jehovah’s Witnesses understand.”

In connection with the treatment of disfellowshipped persons, “the tendency” has developed into a fully-fledged diversionary maneuver. Let us see:

The book Keep Yourselves in God’s Love (Large print edition, 2014) page 267 (above) and the 2017 edition, page 241 (below), says regarding shunning of disfellowshipped persons:

Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes for several reasons. (Italics in the original)

When someone is disfellowshipped, we have no more dealings with that person and we stop talking to him.

Because the members of the Governing Body have forbidden to speak with disfellowshipped persons, it was also forbidden to invite them to meetings and to say a greeting to them if they came to a meeting. But last year, the Governing Body decided that some small changes should be made, as we see in the Watchtower of August 2024, pages 30 and 31:

13 As discussed in the preceding article, sometimes an announcement is made that a person has been reproved. In such a case, we can continue to associate with him, knowing that he repented and abandoned his wrong course. (1 Tim. 5:20) He is still a part of the congregation and needs the encouragement that comes from associating with fellow believers. (Heb. 10:24, 25) However, the situation is quite different with a person who has been removed from the congregation. We “stop keeping company” with that person, “not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.

14 Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily. Certainly, we would not socialize with him. But Christians can use their Bible- trained conscience in deciding whether to invite a person who was removed from the congregation—perhaps a relative or someone they were close to previously—to attend a congregation meeting. What if he attends? In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.

The conscience of a person is trained on the basis of input from his environment and from the information he gets into his mind. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, the consciences of the individuals are trained by the decisions made by the Governing Body. This means that the expression “Bible-trained conscience” is an euphemism for a “Governing Body-trained conscience.”

What was the so-called “Bible-trained conscience” before August 2024? As I have shown above, Witnesses were not allowed to invite disfellowshipped persons to the meetings, and if such a person came to a meeting it was forbidden to say a greeting to him.

How did The Watchtower of August 2024 train the conscience of the Witnesses? The members of the Governing Body admitted that the words of 2 John 10 of not greeting certain persons and not inviting them into their homes do not refer to disfellowshipped persons, as they previously had claimed. Because of this, the members of the Governing Body decided that the Witnesses now were allowed to invite a disfellowshipped person to a meeting and say a short greeting to him if he came. This was their new “Bible-trained” (aka Governing Body-trained) conscience based on the new laws made by the Governing Body. Then we see the alternative reality. We read on page 30:

What if he attends? In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.

Do we understand the situation? The Governing Body has given the new law that one who has invited a disfellowshipped person to a meeting can greet him when he comes. Then the quotation says that each one can use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter, if he will greet the person. But the Governing Body has already trained the consciences of the Witnesses by allowing a short greeting. And the Bible does not say anything about this situation. Therefore, the Bible has not trained anyone’s conscience.

What the members of the Governing Body has done in this situation is to try to persuade the reader that the new law that the Governing Body has made is not made by the Governing Body. But this is a law based on the text of the Bible, and following this law is based on each one’s conscience, not on the decision of the Governing Body.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY USES TWO SORTS OF WEIGHTS

When different items were sold in Israel, weights were used to stipulate the price. Some merchants used two sort of weights, one sort of weight that was heavier than the other when they bought things and a weight that was lighter when the sold the same items to others. According to Proverbs 20:10, this was something detestable to Jehovah:

10 Two sorts of weights and two sorts of eʹphah measures—they are both of them together something detestable to Jehovah.

I use this illustration because the members of the Governing Body sometimes use what we may term as “two sorts of weights.” This is, for example, the case in connection with the Greek word synanamignymi (“mixing together”), which tells how Christians shall treat persons who have been disfellowshipped. The Greek word occurs three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and I quote 1. Corinthians 5:9, 11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14:

9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with (synanamignymi) fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with (synanamignymi) 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.

14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with (synanamignymi) him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy but continue admonishing (noutheteō) him as a brother.

The meaning of the verb synanamignymi 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.’ (Louw and Nida)

In order to find the practical application of the word, we must look at how the word is used in the quoted passages. Two points are mentioned indicating the relationship between members of the congregation, and those with whom they should not synanamignymi: “Not share a meal with him.” and “Continue admonishing him as a brother.”

“NOT SHARE A MEAL WITH HIM”

In a congregation, all are brothers and sisters, and they will treat each other like members of a family. While we love all the brothers and sisters, we will have a closer relationship with some of them. We may have known some for a longer time than others, we may have worked closely together with some than with others in different pursuits, and we may have a similar personality with some but not with others.

If we are doing something in our leisure time, we may do it together with some close friends, and if we invite someone to a party, we invite some of the members of the congregation but not all. But we do not want to make separate groups in the congregation. So, we keep company with all of them in the congregation and the Christian service, while some are closer to us than others.

When there are several young ones in a congregation, it is natural that they spend much leisure time together. They may go together to the beach, engage in some sport together,  visit each other and have meals together. If a family with a youngster moves to the congregation, the youngster wants to be a part of the group of other youngsters, and how can that happen? When the youngster often is invited to be with the other youngsters when they do things together, he or she feels being a part of this group. But if that is not the case, he or she will feel that he or she is left out.

The verb synanamignymi has the meaning “mixing together,” ant it can be applied to a group of youngsters who use to do things together. If synanamignymi is used in the negative sense, a person will not be invited when other youngsters go to the beach or share a meal together in the home of one of them. But all of them still are members of the congregation that functions as a big family.

The Watchtower of August 1, 1974 had two articles on disfellowshipping, and I quote from page 468:

8 The Greek expression used by Paul for “mixing in company with” is the verb syn·a·na·miʹgny·mi, meaning “to mix or mingle together.” The basic verb involved (miʹgny·mi) is used at Matthew 27:34 to describe the mixing of wine with gall and at Luke 13:1 to describe Pilate’s mixing blood with sacrifices. So it involves a real merging or blending, a uniting into a combination or compound. For us to ‘mix in company’ with others would imply a fellowship existing among us. The English term “fellowship” has the sense of “comradeship; companionship; friendliness,” there being a “community [or, common and mutual sharing] of interest, sentiment, etc.” (The World Book Dictionary) So, to fellowship with another means accepting the other person as on an equal standing with oneself, being interested in and entertaining his views, sharing these with an open and favorable attitude. To have spiritual fellowship with another would be, in effect, to have a spiritual ‘good time’ together. But when we exhort a person to repentance we are not uniting ourselves with him in an amicable union; we are not sharing with him any improper attitude and sentiment he may have shown but, rather, are dealing with him as a person in need of correction.

This is a good definition of the word synanamignymi. So, the words of Paul that we should not share a meal with one who has been disfellowshipped, indicates that we will not go together with him to the beach or invite him to a social gathering of friends. But it does not include that we never speak with him or totally isolating him, which is the view of the members of the Governing Body. This is clearly seen in what follows.

“ADMONISHING HIM AS A BROTHER”

The verb noutheteō in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 has the meaning “to provide instruction as to correct behavior and belief.” (Louw and Nida) What would the relationship be between a Christian who is admonishing another and this other person? It means that the one admonishing someone is meeting the other person as a friend. He will use time together with him, reasoning with him, and he may appeal to the feelings and motives of the other person. In order to show this meaning I quote  the seven passages where the verb “admonish” (noutheteō) is found.

Acts 20:31

31 “Therefore keep awake, and bear in mind that for three years, night and day, I did not quit admonishing (noutheteō) each one with tears.

Romans 15:14

14Now I myself also am persuaded about YOU, my brothers, that YOU yourselves are also full of goodness, as YOU have been filled with all knowledge, and that YOU can also admonish (noutheteō) one another.

1 Corinthians 4:14

14I am writing these things, not to shame YOU, but to admonish (noutheteō) YOU as my beloved children.

Colossians 1:28

 28 He is the one we are publicizing, admonishing (noutheteō) every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in union with Christ. 29

1 Thessalonians 5:12-14

12 Now we request YOU, brothers, to have regard for those who are working hard among YOU and presiding over YOU in [the] Lord and admonishing (noutheteō) YOU; 13 and to give them more than extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another. 14 On the other hand, we exhort YOU, brothers, admonish (noutheteō) the disorderly, speak consolingly to the depressed souls, support the weak, be long-suffering toward all.

2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15

14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing (noutheteō) him as a brother.

According to Acts 20:31 Paul was admonishing the elders in Ephesus with tears for three years. The elders viewed Paul as a spiritual brother and friend, and during this long time, he appealed to their feelings and motives. When Romans 15:14 says that they should “admonish one another,” it means that they should treat each other in a friendly way as brothers. Paul admonished the Corinthians as his “beloved children.”

The important point is that the Thessalonians should not “associate with” (synanamignymi) certain persons. But the use of the verb “admonish” (noutheteō) in the seven passages where it occurs, shows that the members of the congregation in Thessalonica should greet the persons they should not “associate with,” they should speak with them like a father speaks with his children, and they should treat them as brothers.

The important point is that the Greek word synanamignymi does not mean to isolate those to whom the verb is referred, not to greet them or speak with them and treat them as if they did not exist. To use a modern expression, not synanamignymi means that Christians should not socialize with the mentioned persons in their spare time, but that they should treat these persons in the same way that  Christians  treat all human beings.

THE TWO SORTS OF WEIGHTS USED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY

Above I quoted the fine definition of the Greek verb synanamignymi in The Watchtower of August 1, 1974. What is the viewpoint of this verb today?

USING SYNANAMIGNY IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS

The Watchtower of August 2024, page 7, says:

“Keep this one marked,” said Paul. The Greek word suggests taking special notice of this person. Paul addressed this directive to the whole congregation, not just the elders. (2 Thess. 1:1; 3:6) So individual Christians who might have noticed a fellow Christian disobeying inspired counsel would choose tostop associating with the disorderly one. Did this mean that the person was treated as someone who was removed from the congregation? No, for Paul added: “Continue admonishing him as a brother.” So individual Christians would still associate with the marked one at meetings and in the ministry, but they would choose not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation. Why? “That he may become ashamed,” said Paul. As a result of the marking, the disorderly Christian might become ashamed of his conduct and change his ways.—2 Thess. 3:14, 15.

The quotation refers to the words in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 “stop associating with” (synanamignymi).  This means that they would associate with him at meetings and in the ministry. But they would “not associate with him for social occasions or recreation.” This is an accurate explanation of the meaning of the Greek word synanamignymi.

Then comes the use of two sorts of weights. We read: “Did this mean that the person was treated as someone who was removed from the congregation? No” The term “removed from the congregation” refers to those who are expelled from the congregation according to 1 Corinthians 5:13, and the same Greek word synanamignymi is also used in 1 Corinthians chapter 5.

Thus, the members of the Governing Body say that synanamignymi (“stop associating with”) in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 means not to associate with the persons “for social occasions or recreation” but in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 synanamignymi means to shun the person and isolate him completely — the only exception being to invite him to a meeting and say a short greeting to him. This is a very clear example of the use of two sorts of weights.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

Have the members of the Governing Body given any reason for this inconsistency? One argument is that the persons that one should be mark were disorderly who refused to work and who were meddling in the affairs of others. These are minor sins compared with the sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapter 5.

This argument is wrong because Paul does not refer to sins that have been committed. But 2 Thessalonians 3: 14 begins with the Greek conjunction “if” (ei). Therefore, Paul speaks about a hypothetical situation. And the hypothetical situation is if someone “is not obedient to our word through this letter.” This is not a petty sin, for Hymenaeus and Philetus were handed over to Satan because they were “saying that the resurrection has already occurred.” (2 Timothy 2:18)

From a linguistic view, only when the contexts shows that the same word has different meanings can we accept such a conclusion. There is nothing in the contexts of 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 indicating that synanamignymi has different meanings. The meaning of the word indicated in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 is not to socialize with, which means not to “associate with for social occasions or recreation.” This is the only meaning of synanamignymi that we can construe from its contexts. Therefore, this must also be the meaning in 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13.

USING TO SOCIALIZE IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS

As the quotation from Jørgen Pedersen shows, the members of the Governing Body work hard to make it seem that they are not the ones who demand that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons shall be completely isolated. But it is the conscience of each Witness that will decide how much or how little contact each member will have with the disfellowshipped and disassociated ones.

I accordance with this false account. The Watchtower of August 2024 present the treatment of disfellowshipped ones in a misleading way. Again we see that two sorts of weights are used, as the following quotations show: On page 15, we read about those who have been disfellowshipped from the congregation (above), and on page 7 we read about those who shall be marked (below):

Paul told them “to stop keeping company” with him. What did that mean? Paul explained that this command included “not even eating with such a man.” (1 Cor. 5:11) Sitting down to a meal with someone can easily lead to having further association with him. Clearly, then, Paul meant that the congregation should not socialize with that man.

 Today, if we notice a fellow Christian who shows such a disobedient spirit, we will make a personal decision not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation.

The expressions “not socialize” and “not to associate with him for social occasions” are semantically speaking identical. But the members of the Governing Body use the two expressions in two different ways without explaining it. This is a way of misleading the readers. We read on page 7:

So individual Christians who might have noticed a fellow Christian disobeying inspired counsel would choose to “stop associating with” the disorderly one. Did this mean that the person was treated as someone who was removed from the congregation? No, for Paul added: “Continue admonishing him as a brother.”

Here we see that “not socialize” and “social occasions” are applied in one way in connection with those who are marked, and in another way in connection with those who have been disfellowshipped from the congregation, in spite of the fact that the Greek word synanamignymi is used in both places. What is the difference? We read on page 7 (above) and page 30 (below):

So individual Christians would still associate with the marked one at meetings and in the ministry, but they would choose not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation.

14 Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily. Certainly, we would not socialize with him. But Christians can use their Bible-trained conscience in deciding whether to invite a person who was removed from the congregation—perhaps a relative or someone they were close to previously—to attend a congregation meeting.

It is particularly the words “not socialize with him” applied to those who have been disfellowshipped that will mislead the readers. We find the meaning of the word “socialize” in Cambridge Dictionary (over), Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (middle), and The Watchtower of August 2024 (below):

to spend time when you are not working with friends or with other people in order to enjoy yourself:[1]

[intransitive] Socialize (with somebody) to meet and spend time with people in a friendly way in order to enjoy yourself.[2]

we will make a personal decision not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation.

When the words «not socialize» are applied to those who have been disfellowshipped, the readers will take this to mean «not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation.” But the meaning the members of the Governing Body put in these words is “absolutely no contact with him” and “he must be totally isolated.” When the members of the Governing Body use the words “not socialize with” with reference to disfellowshipped ones, while their meaning is that these persons must be totally isolated, they are misleading the readers on purpose.

 

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

 

[1]. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/socialize.

[2]. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/socialize.

The Watchtower says that the treatment of disfellowshipped persons is an expression of love for them because this treatment can help them to realize that they have violated Jehovah’s law and to change their course. I agree that the true understanding of the Greek word synanamignymi and the treatment of disfellowshipped ones on the basis of this understanding is an expression of love.

What is this understanding? We will treat a disfellowshipped person exactly in the same way as we treat the other congregation members. We will greet him, speak with him, help him if he needs help, and let him feel that he is welcome to the congregation meetings. But there is one thing that he has lost, namely, the social fellowship with congregation members privately. We will not invite him to a social gathering where we are sharing a meal with him, and we will not socialize with him for recreation. Because of this, the person may realize that he has to change his life in order to conform with the laws of Jehovah. This is to show him love.

But some may say that this is the way those who are marked and not disfellowshipped persons should be treated. This is a saying that turns the situation upside down. What is wrong in this reasoning is that we make up our minds that the hypothetical situation described by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15 is different from the situation he describes in 1 Corinthians 5.13, and therefore, we give synanamignymi one meaning in 2 Thessalonians and another meaning in 1 Corinthians. The correct reasoning would be that there is nothing in the contexts showing that synanamignymi has different meanings in the two passages. Therefore, the word must have the same meaning in both chapters. The word is explained in 2 Thessalonians as not associating with a person for social occasions or recreation, and this must also be the meaning of the word in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 as well.

I have now explained the real meaning of the words of the Governing Body about not socializing with disfellowshipped persons according to the Watchtower of August 2024. But the situation on the ground is very different. The demand of the members of the Governing Body is that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons must be shunned and completely isolated. No one must have contact with them except those who live in the same household and in unavoidable situations, such as when they work for the same employer.

I quote from Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, Large-print edition 2014, page 267 (above), Keep Yourselves in God’s Love (2017), page 241 (middle), and the video “Sonja Ericsson has been removed from Jehovah’s Witnesses” (below):

 Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yeas for several reasons. (Italics in the original)

When someone is disfellowshipped, we have no more dealings with that person and we stop talking to him. (1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 John 9- 11)

They [her parents] knew that if they associated with me, even a little, the small dose of association might have satisfied me. It could have made me think that there was no need to return to Jehovah.

This is not to show the disfellowshipped person love. It is the very opposite. It is a cruel and inhuman way of treating human beings. And believing that God is pressuring persons to change their course and follow his laws shows a complete lack of understanding the personality of God.

The important point in this section has been that the members of the Governing Body in the articles in The Watchtower of august 2024 have led the readers to believe that disfellowshipped persons are treated in a rather mild way, by not socializing with them, which means not to associate with them for social occasions and recreation. But they are hiding the reality that they are treated in a harsh way by being shunned and completely isolated. This is the same using two different weights.[3]

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY

[1]. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/socialize.

[2]. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/socialize.

[3]. There are a few hints in the articles in The Watchtower of August 2024 of a harsher treatment of disfellowshipped persons than those who are mentioned in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3. But one has to look carefully to find these points. The overall picture is that members of the congregation shall not socialize with disfellowshipped persons. Shunning and total isolation are not mentioned.

CONCLUSION

The expression “The alternative reality” means that Jehovah’s Witnesses in some situations have been led to believe that what is fictional is the reality.

The following points have been discussed:

THE REALITY: The members of the Governing Body demand that individual Witnesses must shun and completely isolate disfellowshipped persons except when this is unavoidable.

THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY: Each Witness will decide on the basis of his or her conscience how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons and with those who have resigned.

THE REALITY: The elders can decide that a part of the work of a brother benefits the armed forces and that this is a compromise of his neutrality. If the brother disagrees with the facts, this will not be accepted. The brother is given six months to change his job. If he does not do that, he will be thrown out of the congregation.

THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY: The brother does not agree with the elders that his job benefits the armed forces. Therefore, he keeps his job after the six months have ended. Then he is thrown out of the congregation under the pretext that he, by his free will, has resigned from the congregation because he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

THE REALITY: The Bible shows that blood (Hebrew dam and Greek haima) which is the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals, is the special property of God, and blood from other creatures must not be used for any purpose.

THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY: The members of the Governing Body have decided that the fractions of blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma are forbidden to use. They also have decided that storing one’s own blood for a future transfusion is forbidden. The members of the Governing Body say that their decision is based on the Bible, which is not true.

THE REALITY: A brother authorizes blood transfusions for his wife because the doctors say that otherwise she will die. The brother admits that this is a violation of God’s law. But he cannot regret it because that would be the same as saying that he regrets saving the life of his wife. But he says that he has appealed to Jehovah for forgiveness, and he also says that he wants to continue to be a part of the congregation together with his wife.

THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY: The elders throw him out of the congregation, saying that his action shows that he, by his free will, has left the congregation because he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

THE REALITY: The Greek word synanamignymi  (“mix togheter”) is used in connection with disfellowshipped persons in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and in connection with persons who refuse to accept the words of Paul in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3. In 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 the word is defined as “association with others in social occasions or recreation.” No other meaning is given in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and therefore this must also be the meaning in 1 Corinthians chapter 5.

THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY: The author of an article in The Watchtower of March 1952 decided, whithout any basis in the Bible, that disfellowshipped persons must be shunned and completely isolated. Therefore, the members of the present Governing Body have given synanamignymi the meaning “to shun and totally isolate” in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 but the meaning “not associate with disfellowshipped persons in social occasions or recreation” in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3.

THE REALITY: Disfellowshipped persons are shunned and completely isolated, and there must be no contact between the congregation members and disfellowshipped persons, except in unavoidable situations. Congregation members who continue to have contact with disfellowshipped persons will themselves be disfellowshipped.

THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY: In The Watchtower of August 2024, the members of the Governing Body use the words “not socialize with” in connection with disfellowshipped persons. By this, they lead the readers to believe that disfellowshipped persons is treated in a decisive but rather mild way.

Rolf Furuli

Author Rolf Furuli

More posts by Rolf Furuli

Leave a Reply