The Elders’ Book says that “unnecessary contact” with disfellowshipped and disassociated (resigned) persons must be avoided. Because the representative of Jehovah’s Witnesses lied to the Court of Appeal, the judges were not able to understand the meaning of the expression “unncessary contact.” By using quotations from the Watchtower literature, this article demonstrates that this expression means that it is forbidden to have any contact with disfellowshipped or disassociated persons except in unavoidable situations.
INTRODUCTION
The important issue in the case between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the State was whether the treatment of Witnesses who resigned (disassociated themselves) from the organization impedes “free resignation,” as required by law, and whether the treatment of minors who are disfellowshipped or who resign constitutes “psychological abuse” and “an obstruction of the rights of the child” within the meaning of the law.
The important issue, therefore, is to understand in detail how disfellowshipped and resigned individuals are treated. The State described this treatment as very harsh. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders attempted to downplay this by claiming that it was not the organization that demanded harsh treatment. Rather, the individual Witness determined, based on his or her conscience, how harsh the treatment should be. This is a lie. However, the judges of the Court of Appeal failed to cut through here, so that they understood exactly what happened to disfellowshipped and resigned individuals.
I quote the Court’s conclusions on this matter from page 17 (above), page 18 (middle), and from page 20 (below):
It follows from the 2019 Elders’ Handbook (Chapter 12, Section 17) that “unnecessary association” with disfellowshipped or disfellowshipped individuals can be considered so-called “shameless conduct.”
Based on the review above, there is no doubt that the main rule is that Jehovah’s Witnesses should avoid contact with disfellowshipped and disfellowshipped members, with the exception of family members in the same household and for contact with other family members in “necessary family matters.”
The question is whether the social consequences of losing, or at least greatly reducing, contact with members of Jehovah’s Witnesses – including family members – if one resigns, are in conflict with the right to free resignation.
All three expressions are vague and imprecise, and they show that the judges had not fully understood how disfellowshipped and resigned individuals are treated. In contrast to this, I said in my statement in the Court of Appeal that all contact between Witnesses and disfellowshipped and resigned individuals is prohibited except in unavoidable situations.
To understand the scope of the command to shun and totally isolate disfellowshipped and resigned individuals, we must understand the purpose of this. In addition to this, I will review some statements in the Watchtower literature about the scope of total isolation.
THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES LIE REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND RESIGNED MEMBERS
Since the year 2021, when the County Governor asked Jehovah’s Witnesses to explain in writing how disfellowshipped persons were treated, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses have given false information to the authorities regarding this issue.
THE FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN BY JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
The representative of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Kåre Sæterhaug, lied both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeal. On pages 13 (above) and 18 (below) of the written decision of the Court of Appeal we read:
However, Sæterhaug also said that the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including those on social distancing, must be considered as guidelines (veiledende), and that it is up to the conscience of the individual member how to practice this…
However, Jehovah’s Witnesses have argued that it is a personal decision for each individual Jehovah’s Witness, based on one’s own conscience, how strictly one practices the rules to avoid/limit contact with disfellowshipped or expelled members. Jehovah’s Witnesses have here referred, among other things, to an article from the newspaper Vårt Land from April 27, 2024, where a spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses states that the degree of “unnecessary contact” with disfellowshipped family members is a personal decision based on the conscience of the individual.
After this description, we read on page 18:
However, the Court of Appeal cannot see that this possibility of more association with expelled or disfellowshipped members based on one’s own conscience is embodied in the written texts of Jehovah’s Witnesses that were reviewed during the appeal hearing.
The court has not found any basis in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ texts for what Sæterhaug said. And the court then describes what was found in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ writings, also on page 18:
It follows from the Elders’ Book from 2019 (chapter 12, paragraph 17) that “unnecessary association” with disfellowshipped or resigned individuals can be considered so-called “shameless behavior.” The consequences of having such “unnecessary association” will depend on whether the person with whom one has association is a family member or not. If, despite repeated admonitions, one continues to have such association with someone who is not a family member, a judicial committee may be appointed. In the case of “unnecessary association” with family members, however, the elders will first guide the person in question. It further states here that if the member does not comply with such guidance, one may be considered ineligible to receive privileges in the congregation, “because it requires one to be a good example”. It further states that, in the case of such unnecessary association with family members, a judicial committee will only be appointed if there is “persistent spiritual association or persistent open criticism of the decision to disfellowship.”
These are correct observations based on the Elders’ Book. But the key point here is what is implied by the word “unnecessary” in the term “unnecessary association.”
| The expression “unnecessary association” in the Elders’ Book includes all association, except association that is unavoidable. I will show this in what follows. |
ONE STEP FORWARD AND ONE STEP BACKWARD
The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, contained two articles on disfellowshipping under the titles: “God’s Mercy Shows the Way Back to the Wayward” and “A Balanced View of Disfellowshipped Ones.” These two articles were, in fact, a revolution in the view of disfellowshipped persons, because the harsh treatment of disfellowshipped ones that had existed for 22 years was now softened. This particularly applied to contact with disfellowshipped ones in the family. We read on page 565:
21 As for disfellowshipped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will associate with them. This is not something that the congregation elders can decide for them. What the elders are interested in is that the ‘leaven’ is not allowed to come back into the congregation by anyone having spiritual fellowship with those who had to be removed as “leaven.” If a disfellowshipped father or mother comes to visit a son or daughter or to greet his grandchildren and is allowed into a Christian home, this is not the elders’ business. Such an disfellowshipped one has a natural right to visit his family and see his children and grandchildren. When sons or daughters honor their father or mother, despite being disfellowshipped, by visiting them to see how they are doing or to find out if there is anything they need, this in itself is also not tantamount to spiritual fellowship.
Sæterhaug could have cited the words in the quotation as evidence for his claim that avoiding disfellowshipped ones is not a requirement, but it is a guideline (veiledende), and individuals must decide on the basis of their conscience how much or little contact they want to have with someone who is disfellowshipped or has resigned. This is clear from the words in the quotation.
But if Sæterhaug had used this quotation, he would still be lying. For the “revolution” in the view of disfellowshipped ones that this magazine presented was never implemented in the congregations. When the two articles were studied at the Watchtower Study, there were a few weeks when the view of disfellowshipped ones changed somewhat for many. But there was no follow-up from the elders, because they were not told to introduce what the articles wrote about.
I can say this because between 1972 and 1974, I was the district overseer for the entire country, and between the rounds of conventions my wife and I worked at the branch office. In 1974, I was assigned to be the instructor of a two-week course for all elders, which would last for 18 months. Since I was to teach the elders, I had many discussions with the leading brothers at Bethel, and these two articles were especially thoroughly discussed because they contained so much new thinking.
Both articles were written by Raymond Franz, who often had a more liberal view than the other members of the Governing Body. He later left the Governing Body, and he was disfellowshipped. Shortly after these two articles were studied, everything reverted to the treatment of disfellowshipped ones that had been going on before these articles came out. And in the Watchtower of November 15, 1981, articles appeared that directly contradicted the essential conclusions of the 1974 articles. Therefore, if anyone refers to the 1974 articles to prove that the treatment of disfellowshipped ones is only guidelines and that each individual must decide how he or she will treat disfellowshipped ones, then that person is either guilty of a lack of knowledge or is guilty of outright lying.
CUTTING “ALL UNAVOIDABLE CONTACT” OR “GREATLY REDUCING THE CONTACT”?
Shunning and completely isolating the disfellowshipped ones have been the requirements of the past 73 years. The frame below provides a brief overview of the prohibitions of all unavoidable contact. A more detailed discussion follows below.
CHRISTIANS SHOULD SHUN DISFELLOWSHIPPED PERSONS COMPLETELY, WITHOUT HAVING ANY ASSOCIATION WITH THEM, EXCEPT WHEN THIS IS UNAVOIDABLEExamples of total isolation will be discussed in detail below. Here I give three short examples. The requirement of total isolation was introduced in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952. I quote from page 140:
The Watchtower of June 1, 1970, page 140, discussed contact with disfellowshipped family members not living in the same household:
The magazine listed “legalities over a will or property” as examples of “absolutely necessary” family matters. These are situations that almost never happen, and they illustrate that contact with disfellowshipped family members should only happen in unavoidable situations. In 2021, the interactive Bible course Enjoy Life Forever was released. Lesson 57 discusses disfellowshipping. This lesson was accompanied by a video entitled “Be Loyal to Jehovah’s Judgments.” This video shows a disfellowshipped young girl calling her mother, and when the mother sees that it is her daughter who is calling, she does not answer the phone. The daughter’s response is:
This is what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. The slightest contact with a disfellowshipped person can make him think that it is not so necessary to return. Therefore, relatives should not answer the phone if a disfellowshipped person calls. This has also been shown in demonstrations at conventions. |
RULES FOR TREATING DISFELLOWSHIPPED ONES
The first detailed discussion of disfellowshipping and how disfellowshipped ones should be treated occurred in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952, pages 140, 141:
10 At 1 Corinthians 5:11 (NW), Paul told the Christian congregation: “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 association of any kind was to be had with people who had been disfellowshipped from the congregation. Why not? Because this congregation of God must remain clean, undefiled, and preserved for the pure worship of the Most High. Hence, when disfellowshipping is made, the person is truly removed. He is then put out. And the whole congregation, all those who have dedicated their lives to God, should then follow the recommendation or resolution that the ministers have given. 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.
The disfellowshipped person should be treated in the following manner:
1. He is not one of us. Therefore, we must absolutely avoid him and not speak to him at all.
2. Disfellowshipped persons are unclean, and for the congregation to remain clean, we must have nothing to do with them.
The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, page 413 says:
Therefore the members of the congregation will not associate with the disfellowshiped one, either in the Kingdom Hall or elsewhere. They will not converse with such one or show him recognition in any way. If the disfellowshiped person attempts to talk to others in the congregation, they should walk away from him. In this way he will feel the full import of his sin.
What if a disfellowshiped person and a member of the congregation both work at the same place of secular employment? Could they have association then, since their work may require them to have communication with one another? Here again, it is a matter of recognizing the changed status of the one who is disfellowshiped. While it is permissible to converse to the extent necessary for carrying out the functions of the work, it would not be proper to associate in the sense of communicating freely, without regard for his status. Only the necessary business would be discussed, never spiritual matters or any other matter that does not come under the category of necessary business related to the secular employment. If the contact required is too frequent and intimate, the Christian could consider changing his employment so as not to violate his conscience.
1. By completely isolating the disfellowshipped one, he will feel the enormity of his sin.
2. If one works in the same place, some contact is inevitable. But contact should be kept to a minimum.
The Watchtower of March 15, 1986, page 18, states:
12 Some who have a critical attitude claim that Jehovah’s organization is too strict about cutting off socialcontacts with disfellowshipped persons. (2 John 10, 11) But why do such critics feel that way? Do they have a close family tie or mistaken loyalty to a friend that they are putting ahead of loyalty to Jehovah and his standards and requirements? Consider, too, that continuing to accord social fellowship to an expelled person, even one as close as a relative, may lead the erring one to conclude that his course is not so serious, and this to his further harm. However, withholding such association may create in him a craving for what he has lost and a desire to regain it. Jehovah’s way is always best, and it is for our own protection.—Proverbs 3:5.
1. By not completely isolating the disfellowshipped one, he may feel that his situation is not so serious, and he may not see that he needs to change his life.
2. By isolating the disfellowshipped one, he may miss what he has lost and desire to return.
Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, (Large Print, 216) pages 267, 268, says:
We have no spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshipped persons. The Watchtower of November 15, 1981, page 19, stated: “Just saying ‘Hello!’ to someone can develop into a full conversation and perhaps even into a friendship. Do we want to take such a first step toward someone who is [disfellowshipped]?”
Is it really necessary to avoid such a person altogether? Yes, for several reasons. First, it is a matter of loyalty to God and his Word. We obey Jehovah not only when it is easy to do so but also when it presents real challenges. Our love for God moves us to obey all his commandments, and we appreciate that he is just and loving and that his laws are always for the best. (Isaiah 48:17; 1 John 5:3) Second, withdrawing from an unrepentant wrongdoer will protect us and the rest of the congregation from spiritual and moral corruption and will preserve the congregation’s good name and reputation. (1 Corinthians 5:6, 7) Third, our firm stand for Bible principles can also benefit the disfellowshipped one. By supporting the judicial committee’s decision, we may reach the heart of a wrongdoer who has so far failed to respond favorably to the elders’ efforts to help him. The loss of precious association with family and friends may cause him to “come to his senses,” realize the seriousness of his wrong course, and take steps to return to Jehovah.—Luke 15:17.
1. By isolating the disfellowshipped one, we are obedient to Jehovah.
2. By isolating the disfellowshipped one, we are protected from moral corruption.
3. By isolating the disfellowshipped one, he may miss what he has lost, see the seriousness of his sin, and want to return.
Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, (2018) page 241, has a much shorter discussion of disfellowshipping than the previous edition of the book:
When a person who has committed a serious sin is unrepentant and does not want to conform to Jehovah’s standards, he can no longer be a member of the congregation. He must be disfellowshipped. When a person is disfellowshipped, we have no further association with him, and we stop speaking to him. (1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 John 9-11) The disfellowshipping arrangement protects both Jehovah’s name and the congregation. (1 Corinthians 5:6) Disfellowshipping is also discipline that can help a person to repent so that he can return to Jehovah.—Luke 15:17.
1. By isolating the disfellowshipped one, we protect Jehovah’s name and the congregation.
2. By isolating the disfellowshipped one, the person can repent and return to Jehovah.
These quotations show that members of the congregation should “have nothing to do” with the disfellowshipped one, “never say ‘hello’ or ‘goodbye’ to him,” “avoid him and do not speak to him at all” (1952). If he speaks to anyone, they should “go away from him” (1963), “to avoid such a person completely” (2016). The purpose of disfellowshipping supports the idea of total isolation.
The main purpose is for the disfellowshipped one to see the seriousness of his situation, miss what he has lost, and return. The quotation from The Watchtower of March 15, 1986, is especially important in our context. If someone has contact with the disfellowshipped one, he may think that it is not so bad if he does not change and return.
| The points in the quotations show that the Governing Body’s requirement is “to cut off all contact with the disfellowshipped one” and not simply “to greatly reduce contact.” The 1986 quotation and the video “Be Loyal to Jehovah’s Judges” from 2021 show that even a little contact can destroy the purpose of the isolation. For then the disfellowshipped one may not see the seriousness of the situation. |
“CUTTING OFF ALL UNAVOIDABLE CONTACT” OR “SEVERELY REDUCE CONTACT” WITH FAMILY MEMBERS?
The only difference between the treatment of disfellowshipped family members and that of other disfellowshipped ones is that there must be some physical contact between a disfellowshipped person living in the same household where other Witnesses live. However, all unnecessary contact is prohibited. This means that only unavoidable contact with family members is acceptable. The Watchtower of June 1, 1970, page 351, states:
Again, the disfellowshiping does not dissolve the flesh-and-blood ties, but, in this situation, contact, if it were necessary at all, would be much more rare than between persons living in the same home. Yet, there might be some absolutely necessary family matters requiring communication, such as legalities over a will or property. But the disfellowshiped relative should be made to appreciate that his status has changed, that he is no longer welcome in the home nor is he a preferred companion.
The word «absolutely» is in the expression “absolutely necessary” is in italics in the original. This means that only in rare situations, as the two situations that are mentioned, “legalities over a will or property,” should there be any contact with a disfellowshipped family member.
The Watchtower of March 15. 1986, page 18, says:
12 Some who have a critical attitude claim that Jehovah’s organization is too strict about cutting off social contacts with disfellowshipped persons. (2 John 10, 11) But why do such critics feel that way? Do they have a close family tie or mistaken loyalty to a friend that they are putting ahead of loyalty to Jehovah and his standards and requirements? Consider, too, that continuing to accord social fellowship to an expelled person, even one as close as a relative, may lead the erring one to conclude that his course is not so serious, and this to his further harm. However, withholding such association may create in him a craving for what he has lost and a desire to regain it. Jehovah’s way is always best, and it is for our own protection.—Proverbs 3:5
If we do not have contact, the disfellowshipped one may crave for what he lost and return to the congregation.
The Watchtower of January 1, 1983, page 31, speaks about grandparents:
Another sort of loss may be felt by loyal Christian grandparents whose children have been disfellowshipped. They may have been accustomed to visiting regularly with their children, giving them occasion to enjoy their grandchildren. Now the parents are disfellowshipped because of rejecting Jehovah’s standards and ways. So things are not the same in the family. Of course, the grandparents have to determine if some necessary family matters require limited contact with the disfellowshipped children. And they might sometimes have the grandchildren visit them. How sad, though, that by their unchristian course the children interfere with the normal pleasure that such grandparents enjoyed!
Grandparents cannot have contact with their disfellowshipped children, and they will have difficulties in the contact with their grandchildren.
Kingdom Ministry of August 2002, page 4, says:
3 This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God’s Word states that we should ‘not even eat with such a man.’(1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.
9 Relatives Not in the Household: “The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home,” states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.—See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.
This quotation shows that the expression «avoid social fellowship» inplies to avoid any contact that is not unavoidable.
«Keep yourselves in God’s Love», (Large-print edition, 2016) page 267, says:
We do not have spiritual or social contact with disfellowshipped ones. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25. stated: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that fist step with a disfellowshipped person?
Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons.
What if a relative is disfellowshipped? In such a case, the close bond between family members can pose a real test of loyalty…
In other cases, the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there may be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home.
In 2021, the interactive Bible course Enjoy Life Forever was released. Lesson 57 discusses disfellowshipping. This lesson was accompanied by a video entitled “Be Loyal to Jehovah’s Judgments.” This video shows a disfellowshipped young girl calling her mother, and when the mother sees that it is her daughter calling, she does not answer the phone. The daughter’s response is:
They knew that if they had contacted me, just a little, that little dose of contact could have satisfied me. It could have made me think that is was not necessary to return to Jehovah
This is what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. The slightest contact with a disfellowshipped person can make him think that it is not so necessary to return. Therefore, relatives should not answer the phone if a disfellowshipped person calls. This has also been shown in demonstrations at conventions.
The rule is that parents who have disfellowshipped children living at home will have them move out when they are able to care for themselves. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 29, shows that if a child is sick and cannot care for himself, he may be allowed to move home. However, note the wording that shows that this can only happen when it is impossible for the child to care for himself. Elderly disfellowshipped parents who are unable to care for themselves may also be cared for:
16 This could be true also with regard to a child who had left home but is now disfellowshiped or disassociated. Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshiped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring “leaven” into the home?—Gal. 5:9.
| The quotes above show that the situation is the same for family members as for everyone else. Only contact with disfellowshipped family members that is unavoidable is acceptable. They also show that “not having social contact” means breaking off all contact “completely.” |
THE INTRODUCTION OF TOTAL ISOLATION OF THOSE WHO RESIGN
Until 1981, a Witness could resign from the congregation without being punished. But in that year, a change occurred. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 23, says:
16 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.
The Watchtower for September 15, 1985, page 31, says:
In contrast, John’s words indicate that some went further than spiritual weakness and inactivity; they actually repudiated God’s congregation. Someone may have come out openly in opposition to God’s people, declaring that he no longer wanted to be in the congregation. He may even have renounced his former faith formally, such as by a letter. Of course, the congregation would have accepted his decision to disassociate himself. But how would they then have treated him?
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.
The seriousness of this counsel is evident from John’s words: “He that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” No true Christian would have wanted God to view him as sharing in wicked works by associating with an expelled wrongdoer or with one who rejected His congregation.
The reason for the total isolation of disassociated (resigned) ones, just like the disfellowshipped ones, is that the disassociated ones are part of the antichrist. This is of course an impossible argument, for it is a claim without any basis whatsoever.
The Watchtower of July 1963, page 410, states that “Therefore, the ones who are hardened in wrongdoing are the ones who are disfellowshipped.” When the 1981 quotation says that those who resign “should rightly be treated and regarded in the same way as those who have been disfellowshipped,” it implies that those who are disassociated (resigned) are viewed as hardened wrongdoers.
The Royal Commission in Australia investigated child abuse among Jehovah’s Witnesses. One example was a young woman who was sexually abused by an elder in the congregation. The elder was allowed to stay in the congregation, while she received no support. This situation affected her so much that she could not bear to be in the congregation, and she resigned. She was now without reason viewed as a hardened wrongdoer, as an antichrist. We can also think of people who lose their faith and resign. To claim that they are hardened wrongdoers or antichrists is of course completely impossible. The book “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (2016, large print), page 43, attempts to provide a biblical justification why resigned ones must be treated like the disfellowshipped ones:
WHEN TO WITHDRAW FELLOWSHIP
19 At times, we are called upon to withdraw our fellowship from one who has been a member of the congregation. This situation arises when an individual who unrepentantly violates God’s law is disfellowshipped or when he rejects the faith by teaching false doctrine or by disassociating himself from the congregation. God’s Word plainly tells us to «stop keeping company» with such ones. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11)
The claim that “God’s Word plainly tells us to ‘stop keeping company’ such ones” is a direct misuse of God’s Word. First Corinthians 5:11-13 speaks of persons who practice serious sins, and 2 John speaks of persons who deny “Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” Neither scripture speaks of persons who disassociate themselves (resign).
Two major reasons given for Witnesses not to have contact with disfellowshipped ones are that the disfellowshipped ones should feel the loss of what they no longer have and then return, and if there is only a little contact, the disfellowshipped one may think that his action is not so serious and that he does not need to return.
But what is the purpose of treating a resigned one in the same way as a disfellowshipped one? The article “What It Means to Be Disfellowshipped” in The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, page 409, outlines the reasons for disfellowshipping:
What is the purpose of this cutting off from God’s congregation? The most important purpose is the preservation of Jehovah’s pure worship. No corrupting influence is allowed to remain.
Another benefit derived is that others in the congregation will have their confidence in God’s visible organization strengthened by observing its firm stand for righteous principles.
In the Christian congregation there is yet another important benefit, this time to the one disfellowshiped. Under the Christian system of things, the offender is not put to death. Through this drastic disfellowshiping action, the offender might be shaken and shocked to his senses and become ashamed of his bad course of action.
None of the points above fit those who resign from the congregation. The only reason I have found for the shunning of disassociated (resigned) persons is expressed in The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 27:
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.
This is a strange reasoning. When a person is disfellowshipped, he is removed from the congregation. There are undoubtedly only a few who disassociate themselves (resign) who actively express apostate views. Most of this group are people who have lost their faith and who do not want to be Jehovah’s Witnesses any longer. When they preach to others, the Witnesses meet many different kinds of people, and they talk to them. If they meet someone who has his own arguments and will not listen to the Witnesses, the Witnesses will politely leave them and not be influenced by them.
The whole argument for treating those who resign the same as disfellowshipped ones is very far-fetched. It seems as if this was invented in order to at least have some kind of justification for treating disassociates as hardened wrongdoers. But most of those who resign are not hardened wrongdoers
CONCLUSION
I confirm that during my 59 years as a Witness from the year 1961, the requirement from the leaders was that disfellowshipped persons must be shunned and totally isolated, and the contact should not only be “greatly reduced.” From 1981, those who resigned should also be treated in the same way as disfellowshipped ones.[1] An elder has confirmed that between 202o, when I was disfellowshipped, and the present, there has been no change in the requirement of shunning and totally isolating disfellowshipped and resigned persons.
The Watchtower of August 2024 allows Witnesses to invite a disfellowshipped person to a meeting. And if he comes, a short greeting can be given, but no extended conversation. This is a small adjustment that does not invalidate the requirement of shunning and totally isolating disfellowshipped and resigned persons.
| The meaning of the words “unnecessary association” in the Elders’ Book is that all association with disfellowshipped and resigned persons except association that is unavoidable is forbidden. |
In what follows I will repeat some statements from the Watchtower literature that confirm the words inside the frame:
No association of any kind was to be had with people who had been disfellowshipped from the congregation… Those who are acquainted with the situation in the congregation should never say “Hello” or “Good-by” to him… Those who are informed and know the individual certainly should avoid him, have nothing to say to him. (The Watchtower of March 1, 1952, page 140)
Therefore the members of the congregation will not associate with the disfellowshiped one, either in the Kingdom Hall or elsewhere. They will not converse with such one or show him recognition in any way. If the disfellowshiped person attempts to talk to others in the congregation, they should walk away from him. In this way he will feel the full import of his sin. (The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, page 413)
Yet, there might be some absolutely necessary family matters requiring communication, such as legalities over a will or property. (The Watchtower of June 1, 1970, page 351)
By refusing any form of spiritual fellowship or social association with a disfellowshipped one, they show their loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to God’s command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13 (The Watchtower, November 15, 1981, page 18)
However, withholding such association may create in him a craving for what he has lost and a desire to regain it. Jehovah’s way is always best. (The Watchtower of March 15, 1986, page 18)
“It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” (Kindom Ministry August 2002, page 4)
We may be asked to stop associating with someone who was once a member of the congregation. (Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, 2016, large print, page 43)
Is it really necessary to avoid such a person completely? Yes, for several reasons. (Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, 2016, large print, page 267)They knew that if they had contacted me, just a little, that little dose of contact could have satisfied me. It could have made me think that it was not necessary to return to Jehovah. (Enjoy Life Forever, Lesson 57, deleted video, 2021)
[1]. The only exception was that for a short time in the year 1974 two articles in the Watchtower argued that Witnesses could have some fellowship with disfellowshipped relatives. This was not implemented in the congregations, as I have shown above.
During the 21st century, more than 1.5 million Witnesses have been disfellowshipped. In order to illustrate how bad disfellowshipping is, and how it has ruined the lives of tens of thousands of men, women and children, I copy a translation of an article I wrote in the Norwegian newspaper Dagen on April 10, 2025.
DISFELLOWSHIPPING IS NOT LOVING ACT
The important issue in the Court of Appeal was how the Jehovah’s Witnesses treat disfellowshipped and disassociated ones. The Witnesses claim that disfellowshipping is a loving act. However, in my 56 years as an elder, I have seen how disfellowshipping has led to ruined lives and broken families. I will point to one group that has been particularly hard hit, namely, those who have been disfellowshipped for the use of narcotics, many of whom have been youths.
When someone uses hard drugs, it leads to “a chronic, relapsing brain disorder” that makes it very difficult to quit. An article from the American Addiction Center states:
When people become addicted to heroin, their craving for the drug is so strong that even though they know the consequences of using heroin, they find it impossible to stop using it. Often, those struggling with heroin addiction experience many relapses on the road to overcoming the addiction.
This shows that it is extremely difficult to quit. But there are five things that can help:
- The addict must have a strong desire to quit the abuse.
- Various therapists must help during the withdrawal process.
- Continuous support from family members.
- Continuous support from friends.
- The medication methadone.
In professional articles, it is constantly emphasized how important it is for family and friends to continuously support the drug addict during the withdrawal period. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the requirement for the Witnesses is that all disfellowshipped persons should be removed and that the Witnesses should have nothing to do with them. This means that since the year 1952, when the Watchtower banned all contact with disfellowshipped persons, it has been forbidden for family and friends to provide help to drug addicts.
In the year 1973, another ban was introduced that has prevented the necessary help. The Watchtower of October 1 of that year banned the use of methadone. Heroin and other hard drugs act on specific receptors in the brain, which leads to a strong craving for the drug. Methadone acts on the same receptors in the brain as heroin, and therefore the craving stops, and relapses are prevented. That is why the ban on methadone was so disastrous.
Maintenance doses of methadone do not get you high, but you are allowed to drive a car. A letter from The Watchtower to the elders of August 5, 2003, showed that the ban was still in force. It was not until a letter to the elders of February 6, 2013, that the ban was lifted. The ban on methadone had then been in place for 40 years. The fact that the medicine can be used today is positive. However, family and friends are still prohibited from helping disfellowshipped drug addicts.
It is with great sadness that I must say that since 1973 a large number of disfellowshiped drug addicts have died far too early because the leaders have forbidden them to get the help they needed. Many of these people wanted to quit, but to do so, they needed continuous help from friends and family, and they needed access to methadone.
I have experienced this myself. While the ban on methadone was in effect, I was contacted by a father who had a young son who was a drug addict. The son had called and said that he was determined to quit his abuse. “What can we do,” the father asked. The elders in the congregation agreed that in this case, we would defy the leaders’ demands for total isolation of the disfellowshipped one, and we would help him.
I was assigned to be his contact person, and the young man knew that he could contact me at any time of the day or night if he needed help. Over the course of a few months, he made a great effort and cut down. Finally, he was able to quit completely. He was reinstated in the congregation and functioned well for almost a year. But then he died, according to the police, of an overdose. Because methadone stops the cravings that lead to relapse, it is very likely that this young man would not have died if he had been able to use methadone. But this was forbidden by the leaders.
Jehovah’s Witnesses writes that disfellowshipping is an act of love. But I quote a study by Swiss researchers from 2023 of 424 disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses. (Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 26, 2023, Issue 7):
Regarding coping after the exit, after the contact with the faith community ended, 31% of participants reported that they depended on professional support and 38% reported that they got into a crisis and did not know what they should do with their life anymore (multiple answers possible, see Table 2 for an overview). Furthermore, 33% reported that they had thoughts about taking their own life and 10% attempted to take their own life following the exit. However, 37% reported that they enjoyed their lives to the fullest and did things that they were not allowed to do before, and 58% formed new friends/contacts and reactivated previous contacts.
Based on this report, which is completely consistent with what I have seen myself and what contacts in different countries have told me, it is not possible to agree that disfellowshipping is a loving act!
