THE DEMANDS FOR SHUNNING IN THE YEAR 2026

SHUNNING MEANS TOTAL ISOLATION

The first article describing disfellowshipping was published in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952.  This article told the readers to shun persons who had been disfellowshipped. We read on page 141:

¹³… What is the congregation going to do now with such an individual? We must keep in mind that this person has been disfellowshiped and is not a member of our company. We want to avoid him, we want nothing to do with him.

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

The article shows that all contact with the disfellowshipped one must be broken, and he or she must be totally isolated. I will now quote from various articles showing different sides of the total isolation of the disfellowshipped individual.

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. Otherwise, if all communicated freely with the offender, he would be tempted to feel that his transgression was not such a terrible thing.

The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 22 says:

¹² Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. 

²¹ Would upholding God’s righteousness and his disfellowshiping arrangement mean that a Christian should not speak at all with an expelled person, not even saying “Hello”? Some have wondered about that, in view of Jesus’ advice to love our enemies and not ‘greet our brothers only.’​—Matt. 5:43-47.

²³ The apostle who gave that wise warning was close to Jesus and knew well what Christ had said about greeting others. He also knew that the common greeting of that time was “Peace.” As distinct from some personal “enemy” or worldly man in authority who opposed Christians, a disfellowshiped or disassociated person who is trying to promote or justify his apostate thinking or is continuing in his ungodly conduct is certainly not one to whom to wish “Peace.” (1 Tim. 2:1, 2) And we all know from our experience over the years that 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 first step with a disfellowshiped person?

²⁵ All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: “He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works.”​—2 John 11.

The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 27 says:

Cut Off Thoroughly?

⁷ Christians do not hold themselves aloof from people. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are ‘fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.’ Paul wrote that we cannot avoid them completely, ‘otherwise we would have to get out of the world.’ He directed that it was to be different, though, with “a brother” who lived like that: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that [has returned to such ways], not even eating with such a man.”​—1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17.

⁸ In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khaiʹro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” ​—2 John 9-11.

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

Kingdom Ministry of August 2002, page 3:

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.

⁴ What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah’s view of matters: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, says: “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 first step with a disfellowshiped person?”

“Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (Large-Print Edition 2014), page 43 (above), and page 267 (below):

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 one 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) It may bea real challenge to avoid someone who had perhaps been a friend or who is related to us. Will we take a firm stand, thereby showing that we put loyalty to Jehovah and his righteous laws above all else? Remember that Jehovah places a high value on loyalty and obedience.

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

The six sources I have quoted above show that from 1952 until 2014 (the last source quoted), disfellowshipped persons should be shunned. This means that the members of the congregation should not say a greeting to them nor speak with them, and they should be totally isolated. The only exception was when contact could not be avoided, such as when Witnesses lived in the same house as a disfellowshipped person.

I served as an elder from 1963 to 2020, and I can confirm that the demand from the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses was total isolation of disfellowshipped persons.

One important purpose of total isolation was that the disfellowshipped person should miss family and friends, and that would pressure him or her to repent and come back to the congregation.

This purpose confirms that, from the point of view of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, anything short of total isolation would thwart the very purpose of the disfellowshipping — to pressure the sinner to repent and return. This is expressed in The Watchtower of March 15, 1986, page 18:

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.

Do we understand the point here? Only when the disfellowshipped person becomes totally isolated will he feel to the full how bad it is not to have contact with family and friends. And that may pressure him to change his course. If someone breaks the isolation, that may take some of the pressure away, and he or she may not see how important it is to change course and repent.

This was an important point in a video that was shown at the District Assemblies in 2023. The video was titled, “Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments: Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers.” It showed the girl Sonja Ericksson, who had been disfellowshipped, making a telephone call to her mother. When the mother realized it was her disfellowshipped daughter who was calling, she refused to answer. The video shows that Sonja was reinstated, and regarding her father’s and mother’s behavior by not answering her call, she said:

They knew that if they had contacted me, even a little, this little dose of contact could have satisfied me. It could have led me to think that it was not so necessary to come back to Jehovah.

This video has been deleted because the words of Sonja, which were put in her mouth by representatives of the Governing Body, show that the members of the Governing Body demand total isolation. They do not want to have the responsibility for this, and, therefore, they deleted this video to cover their tracks.

Table 1.1 Expressions of shunning disfellowshipped persons

The Watchtower  of March 1, 1952	Avoid him — have nothing to do with him — have nothing to say to him.
The Watchtower  July 1, 1963	Not associate with — not converse with — walk away from him if he tries to talk.
The Watchtower September 15, 1981	Not to  keep company or fellowship with — shunning the person — not even say “Hallo.” If say a greeting, a sharer in his wicked works.
The Watchtower April 15, 1988	Cut off thoroughly — avoid such ones — refuse to fellowship with.
Kindom Ministry August 2002	Not have spiritual fellowship — no picnic, party, ball game, trip to the mall or theater, sitting down to a meal.
“Keep yourselves in God’s love” (2014)	Withdraw fellowship — called upon to withdraw our fellowship — strict avoidance necessary.
Video 2023	The mother must not answer a telephone call from a disfellowshipped daughter.

The table quotes words in the quotations that disfellowshipped persons must be shunned and totally isolated.

TOTAL ISOLATION OF RELATIVES

From the point of view of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is no difference in the treatment of disfellowshipped family members versus non-family members, as I will discuss below.

The Watchtower of September 15. 1981, page 23 (above) and 29 (below):

¹¹ A disfellowshiped person has been spiritually cut off from the congregation; the former spiritual ties have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his relatives, including those in his immediate family. Thus, family members​—while acknowledging family ties—​will no longer have any spiritual fellowship with him.​—1 Sam. 28:6; Prov. 15:8, 9.

¹⁸ The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at one’s home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bible’s inspired direction: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man.”​—1 Cor. 5:11.

¹⁹ Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum. 

The quotations above show that relatives who are not living in the same household must be shunned and isolated in the same way as non-relatives.  However, in 1974, two articles in the Watchtower argued in favor of a less extreme treatment of disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household. One article said that close relatives had a God-given right to visit each other even when one member was disfellowshipped.

The more lenient points of these articles were never implemented in the congregations. I know this because in 1974, I was the teacher of the first two-week course of the 30 courses for all elders in Norway, dealing with all sides of the organization.

I bring a quotation from The Watchtower of 1974, and then one from The Watchtower of 1983, showing a totally different view.

The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, page 471 says:

²¹ As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.

The Watchtower of January 1, 1983, page 30 says:

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!

The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28 says:

¹⁴ The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. 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 line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man.”​—1 Corinthians 5:11.

Kingdom Ministry of August 2002, page 4, says:

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.

«Keep Yourselves in God’s Love» (Large-Print Edition 2014) page 269:

In other cases], the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there might 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. Rather, loyalty to Jehovah and his organization moves them to uphold the Scriptural arrangement of disfellowshipping. Their loyal course has the best interests of the wrongdoer at heart and may help him to benefit from the discipline received.

The Watchtower of October 2017, page 16 says:

¹⁹ Respect the discipline of Jehovah. His arrangement can bring the best long-term outcome for all, including the wrongdoer, even though the immediate effect is painful. (Read Hebrews 12:11.) For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.

Table 1.2 Expressions of shunning disfellowshipped family members

The Watchtower September 15, 1981	Spiritual ties have been completely severed —avoid needless association.
The Watchtower January 1, 1983	Some necessary family matters require limited contact.
The Watchtower April 15, 1988	To have almost no contact with the relative.
Kingdom Ministry August 2002	Contact… kept to a minimum.
“Keep Yourselves in God’s Love”, 2014	Limited contact on some rare occasion.
The Watchtower October, 2017	We must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
Video 2023	The mother must not answer a telephone call from a disfellowshipped daughter.

Seven quotations above show that we must shun and totally isolate family members in the same way we must do with non-family members. However, there may be some situations where family members must have some contact. The admonition in these situations is that there can be “limited contact on some rare occasion.” What guidance has the members of the Governing Body given regarding such rare occasions?

“LIMITED CONTACT ON RARE OCCASIONS”

When we consider this issue, we should keep in mind that the theory is that total isolation may pressure the sinner to repent and return to the congregation. Any breach of this isolation may reduce some of the pressure. We read:

Through this drastic disfellowshiping action, the offender might be shaken and shocked to his senses and become ashamed of his bad course of action. (The Watchtower of July 1963)

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. (The Watchtower March 15, 1986)

They knew that if they had contacted me, even a little, this little dose of contact could have satisfied me. It could have led me to think that it was not so necessary to come back to Jehovah. (Sonja Erichsson’s words in the video)

These quotations show that the rule is total isolation of disfellowshipped family members. But in situations where some contact is unavoidable, there must be some contact between family members and one who has been disfellowshipped.

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. (“absolutely” in the expression “absolutely necessary” is in italics in the original) (The Watchtower of July 1, 1970)

The view of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the 74 years between 1952 and 2026 was that disfellowshipped persons must be totally isolated. The Witnesses would not say a greeting to, or speak with the disfellowshipped ones, or have any contact whatsoever.

Family members would have contact with disfellowshipped ones if they lived in the same house. Apart from this, the only contact with disfellowshipped family members would be when there were “absolutely necessary family matters requiring communication, such as legalities over a will or property.”

2024: SMALL CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND DISASSOCIATED PERSONS

The changes made in 2024 and 2025 were cosmetic and did not significantly alter the treatment of disfellowshipped persons over the previous 72 years.

The view between 1952 and 2024 was expressed in The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 22 (above), and Kingdom Ministry, August 2002, page 3 (below):

²⁵ All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: “He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works.”​—2 John 11.

“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 first step with a disfellowshiped person?”

The last quotation shows that it is wrong even to say “Hello” to a disfellowshipped person. According to the members of the Governing Body, the first quotation applies the words in 2 John 11 to apostates and those with ungodly conduct. By greeting such persons, one would share the responsibility for their wrong conduct, is the argument.

The Watchtower of August 2024, page 29, upholds the view of the first quotation above, not to greet apostates. After that, we read:

By contrast [to the apostates], Paul wrote with regard to a man who had to be removed from the congregation for sexual immorality, as indicated in 1 Corinthians chapter 5. But that man was apparently not an apostate; nor was he actively teaching others to violate God’s standards. (Compare Revelation 2:20.) So while Paul directed those in the congregation to stop keeping company with him—not even eating with him—he did not state that they must never say a simple greeting.

The new view is that while John wrote that Christians should not say a greeting to apostates, he does not forbid saying a greeting to other disfellowshipped people. Therefore, it is now allowed to say a short greeting to disfellowshipped individuals who are not apostates, as we read in The Watchtower of August 2024, page 30:

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 con- science 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.

¹⁵ Some may wonder, ‘Doesn’t the Bible say that a Christian who says a greeting to such a person becomes a sharer in his wicked works?’ (Read 2 John 9-11.) The context of this scripture shows that this direction refers to apostates and others who actively promote wrong conduct. (Rev. 2:20) Therefore, if a person is actively promoting apostate teachings or other wrongdoing, the elders would not arrange to visit him. Of course, there is hope that he will come to his senses. Until that happens, though, we would neither greet such a person nor invite him to attend a congregation meeting.

The new view is that the Witnesses can now say a greeting to a disfellowshipped person who is not an apostate, and he can invite this person to a meeting. The reason for the new view is that The Christian Greek Scriptures does not say that Christians should not greet disfellowshipped persons who are not apostates.

However, the members of the Governing Body are misleading their readers when they write that the people 2 John says that Christians should not greet, were apostates who promoted wrong conduct. Verses 7-10 show that those whom John speaks about were the antichrists who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh, and they were not apostates.[1]

The text in green in the quotation above shows that the treatment of disfellowshipped persons that has been practiced for 73 years still stands: Disfellowshipped persons must be shunned and totally isolated. But the Witnesses can now say a short greeting to some of those disfellowshipped.[2]

For many years, the instruction was that elders should contact all disfellowshipped persons who were not apostates once each year to ask whether they wanted to speak with two elders about their situation. A few years ago, this arrangement was discontinued. But elders who wanted to do so could still contact disfellowshipped persons.

A new arrangement where the elders have more contact with disfellowshipped persons has been instituted, as we read in The Watchtower of August 2024, page 27.

⁶ Is the individual who has been removed from the congregation abandoned​—left completely on his own to find his way back to Jehovah? By no means! When informing an unrepentant wrongdoer that he will be removed from the congregation, the committee of elders will explain to him what steps he can take to return to the congregation. But the elders will do even more. In most cases, they will tell the wrongdoer that they would like to meet with him again after a few months have passed to see if he has had a change of heart. If the wrongdoer is willing to meet with them again, the elders will at that subsequent meeting make a warm appeal for him to repent and return. Even if he has not had a change of heart at that time, the elders will make periodic efforts to contact him in the future.

This is a fine arrangement that allows more disfellowshipped persons to receive help. But the real problem is the disfellowshipping procedures, most of which are manmade and contradict the Bible. This arrangement relates to the elders, and it does not repeal the demand from the Governing Body that the members of the congregations must totally isolate disfellowshipped relatives and non-relatives.

2025: SMALL CHANGES IN THE ELDERS’ BOOK

The book for elders, “Shepherd the Flock of God”, was published in 2019. A slightly revised edition was published in 2024, and a changed edition was published in 2025. I will now discuss the differences between the 2024 and 2025 editions regarding unnecessary association. The 2024 edition, 12.17 (1) is above and the 2025 edition, Appendix A 2, 21 and 22 below? (1)

Unnecessary Association With Disfellowshipped or Disassociated Individuals: Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated nonrelatives despite repeated counsel would warrant judicial action. —Matt.18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:11,13; 2 John 10. 11: lvs 39-40.

If a member of the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. Review with him information from the Remain in God’s Love book, page 241. If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision. (The word “spiritual” in italics in the original.)

21. Unnecessary Association With Persons Who Have Been Removed From the Congregation or Who Have Disassociated Themselves: There is a difference between simply greeting a person who has been removed from the congregation or who has disassociated himself and socializing with him. (w24.08 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-15) A committee should be formed if, despite repeated counsel, an individual willfully and continually engages in unnecessary association with a nonrelative who has been removed from the congregation or who has disassociated himself. — 1 Cor. 5:11, 13.
22. A committee should be formed if, despite repeated counsel, an individual persists in associating with a relative who is promoting apostate teachings or wrong conduct. — 2 John 9-11; Rev. 2:20; see A:42.

Both the 2024 and 2025 books show that a Witness will be disfellowshipped for repeated association with a disfellowshipped or disassociated non-relative. The only exception is “necessary association,” which refers to situations that cannot be avoided, such as when a Witness works for the same company as a disfellowshipped or disassociated person.

The 2025 book shows that greeting a person is not the same as association.

Regarding association with relatives, there is a difference between the 2024 and 2025 books. The 2024 book speaks about “persistent spiritual association.” This means that if a Witness continues to speak with a disfellowshipped or disassociated relative about the Bible, he may be disfellowshipped.

The disfellowshipping offense, according to the 2025 book, is not spiritual association, but any association with a relative who promotes apostate teachings or wrong conduct. This is a great difference because it is not said that association with a disfellowshipped or disassociated relative who does not promote apostate teachings or wrong conduct is a disfellowshipping offense. However, if such an association continues, the elders will call the service department at the Branch office for advice. Whether this will lead to disfellowshipping, we do not know.

What is clear is that the total isolation of the disfellowshipped person with the purpose of causing him to repent, which is “the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree” (the brown text in the 2024 book), is still standing.

[1]. See my article, “How to treat disfellowshipped persons? I Who were those that Christians should not welcome into their homes?” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/04/09/how-to-treat-disfellowshipped-persons-i-who-were-those-that-christians-should-not-greet/)

THE ORCHESTRATED EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE COURTS  AND THE AUTHORITIES  AS TO HOW DISFELLOWSHIPPED PERSONS ARE TREATED

The first step that led to Jehovah’s Witnesses losing their state subsidies in Norway was a letter from the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses to the County Governor of Oslo and Viken that contained false information. Some people who saw the letter pointed out that the information was false. Several letters were sent between the County Governor and Jehovah’s Witnesses. And all letters from the Branch office included some false information. As a result, the County Governor launched an investigation into Jehovah’s Witnesses.

LYING IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT CASES IN NORWAY

Because the members of the Governing Body have made a rule that disfellowshipped persons must be shunned, they also have a responsibility for the consequences of this. To avoid this responsibility, they have systematically tried to place the responsibility on the individual Witnesses by telling lies.

The lies are that there is no demand from the Governing Body that disfellowshipped persons be shunned, but the conscience of each Witness will decide how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons.

 

 These lies are systematic and orchestrated, as the following quotations show:

In the letter from Jehovah’s Witnesses to the County Governor of Oslo and Viken of February 17, 2022, the Witnesses wrote:

On the other hand, one who voluntarily chooses to reject his spiritual position as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses by formally disassociating himself will be respected for this, and everyone in the congregation has the opportunity to use their personal religious conscience to choose if they will delimitate or completely avoid any contact with this person.

The newspaper Vårt Land followed the case in the District Court. In the issue of January 18, 2024, the journalist commented on the words of Anders Ryssdal, the Counsel of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

The Counsel also said that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with the interpretation of the texts of Jehovah’s Witnesses by the state and claimed that the members are not forbidden to meet disfellowshipped persons. But Jehovah’s Witnesses say, according to the counsel, it is not “natural” to socialize with adults that do not have the same faith as themselves.

I was present in the court, and I heard Ryssdal on three different occasions say the following regarding shunning:

There is no fixed, cemented practice.

There is nothing in the doctrine that requires one to break contact with disfellowshipped persons.

There is no practice among the Witnesses, but the individual conscience must determine how much contact one will have with disfellowshipped perons.

This information was given to Ryssdal by Jehovah’s Witnesses. On January 18, 2024, the newspaper Vårt Land wrote regarding the testimony of Kåre Sæterhaug in the District Court:

Kåre Sæterhaug, a board member for Jehovah’s Witnesses, testified in court on Thursday and Friday. He argued that the religious community has no rules for contact with disfellowshipped family members – in direct contradiction to the state’s claim…When asked by the judge whether members can be sanctioned for maintaining contact with disfellowshipped or disfellowshipped family members, Sæterhaug replied that this is not something the congregation is involved in…

The next witness was former elder Rolf Furuli, who has been disfellowshipped for criticizing the current leadership of the religious community. He used harsh words to describe Sæterhaug’s testimony:  – “To use a popular language: This is pure nonsense! It’s not something that an individual decides. Everyone follows the decisions of the Governing Body. What they decide is followed to the letter,” said Furuli. When asked by the judge, Furuli answered in the affirmative that he himself had been involved in disfellowshipping members for having contact with disfellowshipped family members.

On January 17, 2025, Jørgen Pedersen, one of the leaders, wrote an article in the newspaper Dagen:

“As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we respect the views of others and their right to express their opinions, and we do not want to trivialize their feelings. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that each congregation member should decide for himself, in the light of his personal conscience, whether to limit or stop social contact with former congregation members in light of the Bible’s command at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 to “quit mixing in company” with such a person. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not force congregation members to do so. Congregation elders do not control the personal lives of congregation members, nor do they exercise control over the beliefs of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

The lie is that there is no rule that disfellowshipped persons must be shunned, but the conscience of each Witness decides how much or little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons. I say that this lie is “orchestrated” because it was expressed in an official letter from Jehovah’s Witnesses, it was expressed in the district Court and in the Court of Appeals by one of the leaders, it was expressed by the counsel of the Witnesses in both courts, and it was expressed by one of the leaders in a newspaper article.

The book “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (2014), page 34, shows that the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses that have been quoted above, knew that what they said and wrote were false:

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 one 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)

It may be a real challenge to avoid someone who had perhaps been a friend or who is related to us. Will we take a firm stand, thereby showing that we put loyalty to Jehovah and his righteous laws above all else? Remember that Jehovah placesa high value on loyalty and obedience.

The heading and the words “called upon” show that shunning disfellowshipped persons is a demand from the members of the Governing Body. Everything the members of the Governing Body say or write, even when it is presented as a suggestion, is viewed as an order. The elders and the members of the congregations would not dream of disobeying the Governing Body

RECENT LIES TO THE COURTS

A Canadian brother was disfellowshipped, and he sued The Watchtower Society. The case was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada on May 31, 2028. The counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who himself was a Witness, lied to the Court in his description of shunning. He said, for example, that there is no total shunning of disfellowshipped persons, and being disfellowshipped did not affect the relationship between family members in any way.

Philip Brumley is the leader of the Legal Department in the USA. To avoid the Governing Body’s responsibility in a court case, he wrote an affidavit containing false information. On April 14, 2023, he was imposed a fine of 154,448 US$ in the US District Court, specifically for the Ninth Circuit of Montana, for:

“submitting a signed affidavit that demonstrated a reckless disregard for providing an accurate and truthful accounting of acts relevant to determining whether the court had personal jurisdiction over defendant Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (“WTPA”).”

Bromley appealed the fine, and on July 7, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the appeal.

THE GOVERNING BODY’S CONCERTED EFFORTS TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY

There are five procedures used by the members of the Governing Body to avoid responsibility:

• Telling lies.
• Giving actions new names.
• Expressing orders as suggestions.
• Using role models to cause the Witnesses to act.
• Performing cover-ups

Telling lies

The quotations above show that the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, both orally and in writing, have told lies in order to take the responsibility away from the members of the Governing Body.

Giving actions new names

From 1963 to about 2000, a Witness who accepted a blood transfusion without regretting his action was disfellowshipped. If a person saved his life by taking a blood transfusion, and he was disfellowshipped for this, that would be bad publicity for the Watchtower Society, and the Society could also be sued for damages.

Around 2000, the name of the action was changed from “disfellowshipping” to “disassociation.” Now the view was that the person who took a blood transfusion, by his free will, had left the congregation because he no longer desired to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The responsibility was taken away from the elders and the Governing Body. But this new name is a lie, because the person was actually thrown out of the congregation.  He would not be allowed to remain in the congregation if he wanted to remain.

It is the same with a brother who works in a factory where a part of the production is sold to the military. The elders can give the brother six months to change his job. If he has not changed his job after six months, the elders say he has voluntarily left the congregation because he no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is again a lie because he will not be allowed to remain in the congregation if he wants to remain.

Expressing orders as suggestions

Examples include financial contributions from congregations to the Watchtower Society. In 2014, the Watchtower Society sent a letter to the congregations suggesting that each congregation decide on a specific amount of money to send to the Watchtower Society each month. This suggestion was an order, and all congregations followed it.  After this arrangement was instituted, another letter, issued as an instruction, stated that if the congregation, after sending the decided sum of money, had more money than the normal costs for the congregation for three months, this money should be sent to the Watchtower Society. The congregations also followed this order.

Before this new arrangement of contributions, The Watchtower sent a letter to the congregations suggesting that each congregation should contribute a sum 1 US $ per publisher per month to a financial fund whose purpose was to build Kingdom Halls.

The members of one congregation were mostly immigrants from various countries with very little money. This congregation was unable to pay the suggested sum, and after some months, they had a huge “debt” to the Watchtower Society. Three elders went to the Branch Office to explain why they had not paid the suggested sum. But they were told that they had to pay what the “owed” regardless of their circumstances — even though this whole arrangement was presented as a suggestion.

Using role models to cause Witnesses to act

Some years ago, the members of the Governing Body launched a campaign for children as young as 12 years or younger to be baptized. In order to free themselves from responsibility, they did not mention a certain age. But several articles in the literature praised 12-year-olds or even younger children for their baptism. Persons who are mentioned in the Watchtower are role models.

Also, pioneer service (full-time preaching) for children has been praised in the Watchtower literature, including 10-year-old pioneers. These child-pioneers mentioned in the Watchtower literature are also role models. The result was that in the USA in 2012, there were 212 regular pioneers aged 12 years and below, two of whom were 7 years old. There were 6,844 pioneers aged between 12 and 18 (information to the Bethel family).

(See my article “Different kinds of child abuse and the responsibility of the Governing Body.” — https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/01/24/different-kinds-of-child-abuse-and-the-responsibility-of-the-governing-body/).

I do not hesitate to say that appointing children as pioneers is the same as child labor, which is the same as abusing these children.

Performing cover-ups

The Shunning of disfellowshipped and disassociated persons has been attacked in various court cases. To downplay the serious consequences for those being shunned, leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses have lied to the courts, as I have demonstrated above.

The problem is that there are so many expressions of shunning and total isolation of disfellowshipped persons in the Watchtower literature. Two recent expressions were particularly problematic for those who wer lying.

One example is the 2014-edition of the book “Keep Yourself in God’s Love.” On pages 34 and 267, we read that Jehovah’s Witnesses “are called upon to withdraw our fellowship” from disfellowshipped and disassociated persons, and “Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons.” These expressions show that the leaders’ testimonies in the courts were lies. These words show that it is the Governing Body that demands total isolation, and it is not up to each Witness to decide how little or how much he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons.

 In the 2018 edition of the book, there is a cover-up and the quoted text is removed. On page 241, disfellowshipping is mentioned, and we read, “When someone is disfellowshipped, we have no more dealings with that person and we stop talking with him.” These words do not place any responsibility on the members of the Governing Body. And they do not contradict the words that each Witness decides the contact with disfellowshipped persons.

The second example is the video from 2023 about Sonja Erichsson where we learn that a mother must not answer the telephone if her disfellowshipped daughter calls. The cover-up is that this video has been deleted.

CONCLUSION

The demand of the members of the Governing Body in the year 2026 is that all disfellowshipped and disassociated persons must be shunned and totally isolated. In 2024, there was a cosmetic change, that from now on it was allowed to say a short greeting to disfellowshipped and disassociated persons who were promoting apostate teachings or wrong conduct, and to invite such a person to a meeting. But the total isolation is still standing.

 ————————

THE SIGH FROM MY HEART IS THAT JEHOVAH GOD NEVER USES PRESSURE TO CAUSE SINNERS TO REPENT. BUT ROMANS 2:4 SAYS THAT IT IS GOD’S LOVING KINDNESS (KRĒSTOS) THAT LEADS A SINNER TO REPENTANCE.  THAT A SINNER SHALL BE TOTALLY ISOLATED FROM HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS, SO HE WILL BE “SHAKEN AND SHOCKED TO HIS SENSES” IN ORDER TO REPENT, IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. IT IS SIMPLY UNCHRISTIAN!

HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION OF THE GREEK WORDS ME SYNANAMIGNYMI (NOT ASSOCIATING WITH) IN 2 THESSALONIANS 3:15 ACCORDS WELL WITH THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. IF A CHRISTIAN WOULD NOT FOLLOW THE WRITTEN WORDS OF PAUL, THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION SHOULD GREET HIM IN A CORDIAL WAY, SPEAK WITH HIM, AND ADMONISH HIM AS A DEAR BROTHER TO FOLLOW THE WORDS OF PAUL.

HE WOULD NOT LOSE HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS, BUT THE ONLY THING HE WOULD LOSE WOULD BE THE FELLOWSHIP WITH FELLOW CHRISTIANS IN THEIR SPARE TIME. THEY WOULD NOT INVITE HIM TO A SOCIAL GATHERING AND SHARE A MEAL WITH HIM.

THE LOVING CARE FOR HIM BY HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS, WHILE THEY TAUGHT HIM  BY NOT SOCIALIZING WITH HIM IN THEIR SPARE TIME, THAT HE FELL SHORT OF CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR, COULD HELP THIS ERRING BROTHER TO FEEL THE LOVING KINDNESS OF JEHOVAH AND REPENT.

 AN ANALYSIS OF THE GREEK TEXT OF 2 CORINTHIANS 2: 6, 7 SUGGESTS THAT THOSE WHO PRACTIZED THE SINS MENTIONED IN 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9, 10 SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS THOSE WHO WOULD NOT FOLLOW PAUL’S WORDS IN HIS LETTERS TO THE THESSALONIANS.