THE DEMANDS FOR SHUNNING DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND RESIGNED JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN THE YEAR 2026

SHUNNING MEANS TOTAL ISOLATION OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND RESIGNED PERSONS

The view of disfellowshipping and shunning by the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses has changed through time. Most interesting is the fact that in the year 1947, the Awake! magazine had an article arguing that disfellowshipping was wrong and that this action was not based on the Bible. I refer to  Awake! of January 8, 1947, page 27.

The heading of the article is “Are you also excommunicated?” The article refers to The Catholic Encyclopedia, and says that all who are protestants are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Then we read:

This is “canon law” which the Roman Catholic Hierarchy seeks to enforce on the pretext that it is God’s law. The authority for excommunication, they claim is based on the teachings of Christ and the apostles, as found in the following scriptures: Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 16:22; Galatians 1:8, 9; 1 Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10. But the Hierarchy’s excommunication, as a punishment and “medicinal” remedy (Catholic Encyclopedia), finds no support in these scriptures. In fact, it is altogether foreign to Bible teachings. —Hebrews 10:26-31.

The article discusses the historical origins of excommunication (disfellowshipping) and points out that it has a pagan origin. Then the article continues:

It was therefore after Catholicism adopted its pagan practices, A.D. 325, that this new chapter in religious excommunication was written.

Thereafter, as the pretensions of the Hierarchy increased, the weapon of excommunication became the instrument by which the clergy attained a combination of ecclesiastical power and secular tyranny that finds no parallel in history.

The article refers to different persons who were excommunicated, including Martin Luther. Then the article again quotes The Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the right of the Catholic church to excommunicate:

The Church’s right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience reject the means of attaining this common end deserve to be removed from such a society.

The important point in this article is that The Watchtower Society says that excommunication… finds no support in the Scriptures,  it is altogether foreign to Bible teachings. —Hebrews 10:26-31.  By quoting Hebrews 10:26-31, the article shows that God is the one who will judge wicked people and not the leaders of his congregations.

The word “medicinal” used in connection with excommunication means that this action is intended as a remedy rather than a punishment. It is spiritual medicine and a wake-up call for the one who is excommunicated. Catholic excommunication and its purpose have clear parallels in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ disfellowshipping and its purpose, as we will see below. Even the new designation of disfellowshipping, “be removed from the congregation” has a parallel in “removed from such a society” — the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In 1949, the book Counsel on Theocratic Organization for Jehovah’s Witnesses was published. Point 189 says:

If a brother sees a fellow servant do that which is out of harmony with the Lord’s Word and organization, he should not gossip among others; but he would do well to go to his brother and in a kind manner call his attention to his shortcomings. If an individual associated with a company persists in wrongdoing and does not act according to the Scriptures as is becoming a Christian, then the representative members of the congregation who are the servants in the company, the mature ones or spiritually qualified, can decide what course should be taken. (Matt. 18:15-18) The Scriptural admonition is to have nothing to do with wrongdoers who seek to cause divisions. (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10,11) The mature brethren of responsibility would so advise the congregation, disfellowshiping the wrongdoer. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Later if genuine repentance is shown by the dismissed offender the responsible brethren may receive him back into their midst, and inform the congregation. — Prov. 17:10; 2 Cor. 2:6-11; 7:8-12; 2 Thess. 3:14,15.

This book mentions disfellowshipping of persons who persist in wrongdoing that is against the Scriptures. But what kind of wrongdoing that would deserve disfellowshipping is not mentioned. It is also said that Christians should “have nothing to do with wrongdoers who seek to cause divisions.” This is good advice, because it is exactly what Romans 16:17 and Titus 3:10, 11, which are referenced, say.

But this is far from shunning, which means total isolation from family and friends for any disfellowshipped person, and not only for those antichrists who seek to cause division.

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 disfellowshipped individuals must be broken and that they must be totally isolated. The situation in Norway in the early 1950s may throw some light on why shunning was introduced for disfellowshipped persons. There was a group of former Witnesses who actively worked against the organization. They came to a national assembly in Lillehammer in September 1951 to demonstrate against the Witnesses. N.H. Knorr, who was president of the Watchtower Society, gave a talk at that assembly in which he said that the members of this group had to be disfellowshipped.

2 John 7-10 shows that Christians should shun those who are antichrists, and these verses were applied to this group who were disfellowshipped. There were similar groups of active opposers in the USA, and it is likely that the articles on disfellowshipping in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952, were published because of the group in Norway and the groups in the USA.  Because the members of these groups were active opposers, there was a biblical basis for the words that the Witnesses should have nothing to do with them and should not invite these people into their homes.

The problem, however, was that while the demand to have nothing to do with these wicked people had a backing in the words of John, later this demand of total isolation was extrapolated to include all disfellowshipped persons, and even the resigned ones. Thus, the origin of shunning had a sound basis in 1952, but to demand total isolation for all other disfellowshipped and resigned persons has no basis in the Bible.

Shunning and total isolation had a sound biblical basis in 1952 (2 John 7-10), because this included wicked persons who actively opposed Jehovah’s Witnesses. The grave error was that shunning and total isolation were later applied to all disfellowshipped and disassociated persons. This is a violation of how the Word of God says that disfellowshipped persons must be treated There should be normal contact with disfellowshipped and resigned ones in all situations, except one — no social contact with them in their spare time.

I will now quote from various articles that present different sides of the total isolation of disfellowshipped individuals.

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), all disfellowshipped persons were to 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 or worked in the same company.

I served as an elder from 1963 to 2020, and I can confirm that the demand from the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses during this time 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 2016. 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  of July 1, 1963	Not associate with — not converse with — walk away from him if he tries to talk.
The Watchtower of September 15, 1981	Not to  keep company or fellowship with — shunning the person — not even say “Hallo.” If saying a greeting, one is a sharer in his wicked works.
The Watchtower of April 15, 1988	Cut off thoroughly — avoid such ones — refuse to fellowship with.
Kindom Ministry of August 2002	Not have spiritual fellowship — no picnic, party, ball game, trip to the mall or theater, sitting down for 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 30 courses for all elders in Norway, covering  all aspects 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 of September 15, 1981	Spiritual ties have been completely severed —avoid needless association.
The Watchtower of January 1, 1983	Some necessary family matters require limited contact.
The Watchtower of April 15, 1988	To have almost no contact with the relative.
Kingdom Ministry of August 2002	Contact… kept to a minimum.
“Keep Yourselves in God’s Love”, 2014	Limited contact on some rare occasions.
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.

The six quotations above show that we must shun and totally isolate family members in the same way that 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 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 of 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 who are 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 (1) below:

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.

Contrary to the 2024 edition, the 2025 edition shows that greeting a disfellowshipped person is not the same as association with him.

Regarding association with relatives, there is a difference between the 2024 and 2025 editions. The 2024 edition 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 edition, is not spiritual association, but any association with a relative who promotes apostate teachings or wrong conduct. This is, in reality, a much stricter definition. Because “promoting apostate teachings and wrong conduct” can include a great number of those who have been disfellowshipped. All persons who disagree with the teachings of the Governing Body, are per definition “apostates.” A great number of disfellowshipped persons disagree with the Governing Body, and when they defend their views, they can be said to promote these views. There are also many who have been disfellowshipped because they have violated one or more of the non-biblical disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body. They can also be accused of promoting wrong conduct.

The conclusion is that the members of the Governing Body take a stricter view toward those who have contact with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives than before. It is no longer “persistent spiritual association” that leads to disfellowshipping, but “any persistent association” can lead to disfellowshipping.

However, 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 EFFORTS TO MISLEAD THE COURTS  AND THE PUBLIC  REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND DISASSOCIATED JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES 

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 the 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

Regarding lies, Watchtower of August 15, 2001, page 20, says:

⁴ Sarai could say that she was Abram’s sister because she really was his half sister. (Genesis 20:12) Furthermore, he was not under obligation to divulge information to people who were not entitled to it. (Matthew 7:6) Faithful servants of God in modern times heed the Bible’s command to be honest. (Hebrews 13:18) They would never, for instance, lie under oath in a court of law. When the physical or spiritual lives of their brothers are at stake, such as in times of persecution or civil distress, however, they heed Jesus’ counsel to be “cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves.”​—Matthew 10:16; see The Watchtower, November 1, 1996, page 18, paragraph 19.

The contrast between «would never … lie under oath» but «in times of persecution or civil distress…be cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves”​ with previous examples of persons mentioned in the Bible who lied,

shows that in times of persecution and civil distress, Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right to lie.

Because the members of the Governing Body have made a rule that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons must be shunned, they also have the 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 members of the Governing Body that disfellowshipped persons be shunned.  But it is the conscience of each Witness that will decide how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons.

In the section, «Shunning means total isolation,” I have, by using quotations from the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses, shown that the members of the Governing Body demand that disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses must be shunned and totally isolated.

I repeat the words of the book “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (2014), page 34, about total isolation:

 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 has 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.

We should keep in mind the Governing Body’s requirement for total isolation when I quote Jehovah’s Witnesses’ leaders and show that they have been lying. The lies of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ leaders are coordinated and systematic, as the following quotes show:

In the letter from Jehovah’s Witnesses to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken dated 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 claim that it is up to the individual Witness to decide how much contact to have with disfellowshipped individuals is a direct lie. As mentioned, the Governing Body requires that disfellowshipped and resigned individuals be completely isolated and that there be no contact.

That this is a coordinated and systematic lie, which is part of a campaign by Jehovah’s Witnesses to mislead the court and the public, we see from what Jørgen Pedersen, who is one of the leaders, wrote in the newspaper Dagen on January 31, 2024:

“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.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ lawyer, Anders Ryssdal, who had received his information from the Witnesses’ leaders, made the same false claims in the District Court and the Court of Appeal. He said that he did not agree with the state’s interpretation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ texts, and that they must be read religiously. The only ones who can read them religiously are Jehovah’s Witnesses. He claimed that members are not prohibited from associating with disfellowshipped persons. But it is not natural for Jehovah’s Witnesses to associate with adults who do not share their faith.

I was present in the District Court, and I heard Ryssdal make the following false claims about the treatment of disfellowshipped witnesses on three separate occasions:

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 persons.

I followed the proceedings in the Supreme Court, and Ryssdal again said that it was up to the conscience of each individual Witness how much contact he or she wanted to have with someone who had been disfellowshipped or disassociated. This information was given to Ryssdal by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

On January 13, 2024, the newspaper Vårt Land wrote about Kåre Sæterhaug’s testimony in the District Court. Sæterhaug is one of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The journalist quoted Sæterhaug, and his report shows that Sæterhaug lied several times. The different colors of the text correspond to the colors of the points below that comment on the lies:

– How contact with expelled members is practiced is up to the individual and the individual family, depending on how they interpret the principles of the Bible. This was explained by Kåre Sæterhaug, a board member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to the court on Thursday…

If members do not comply with the regulations, the state believes that this will be met with sanctions, and in the worst case, have consequences for their own membership…In court, Sæterhaug claims that this is not true....

When asked by the judge whether members can be sanctioned for maintaining contact with expelled or disfellowshipped members in their own family, Sæterhaug replied that this is not something the congregation is involved in…

The judge then asked what would happen if a mother continued to have the same contact with her child, even if the child joined another religious community.– It is up to her conscience. She will not risk being disfellowshipped, said Sæterhaug…

Time and again, Sæterhaug was pressed on whether there was no “correct course of action” and whether there were no consequences for continuing to maintain contact with disfellowshipped family members. Finally, Sæterhaug admitted that there could be consequences if one repeatedly defied the guidance of elders in the congregation. But since “the elders do not function as police,” such contact, as it becomes widely known, must also express a “rude and disrespectful attitude.” Sæterhaug nevertheless assured that “a judicial committee will never be set up for contact that occurs within a family.”

The next witness was former elder Rolf Furuli, who is disfellowshipped for criticizing the current leadership of the religious community. He used harsh words to describe Sæterhaug’s testimony – “To use a colloquial language: This is pure nonsense! It’s not something that an individual decides. Everyone follows what the supreme council has decided. What they decide is followed to the letter, said Furuli. When asked by the judge, Furuli replied in the affirmative that he himself had been involved in this form of disfellowshipping.

We can see the following lies:

1) It is not a requirement to shun disfellowshipped ones. But each individual Witness decides how much or little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped ones.

2) It is not true that those who do not follow the rules are met with sanctions.

3) The congregation (elders) do not care how much contact family members have with disfellowshipped and disassociated family members.

4) It is up to a mother’s conscience whether she wants to have the same contact as before with her disfellowshipped child. If she maintains this contact, she will not be disfellowshipped.

5) A judicial committee will never be established for possible disfellowshipping for contact with disfellowshipped persons that occurs within a family.

Regarding point 5, one who was present in the District Court and made a sound recording of the testimony of Sæterhaug, referred to the following exchange:

The Counsel of the state, Gjone Gabrielsen: Some texts say that if someone sosializes with a person who has left the congregation, he can also be disfellowshipped?

Sæterhaug: I have never heard about that. I have been an elder for almost 30 years, and I have never heard about that.

We must remember that in a courtroom cross-examination, where a witness has to give quick answers to questions he does not know in advance, it is easy to say something that is imprecise or even incorrect.

We must admit this possibility to Sæterdal. What is clear, however, is that Sæterdal is systematically trying to show that it is not correct that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons are shunned and isolated. This is part of the coordinated and systematic lies that come from the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

RECENT LIES TO THE COURTS

A Canadian Witness 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 (a written statement confirmed by oath) 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.

This lie is particularly glaring: “You have six months. If you don’t do as we say, we will throw you out of the congregation, because you no longer want to be a part of the congregation.” It is almost unbelievable that intelligent people can accept this absurd situation. But the extreme loyalty to the Governing Body trumps reason.

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.

Some years before this new arrangement of contributions, The Watchtower sent a letter to the congregations suggesting that each congregation contribute $ 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 they “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).

In the case of the 7-year-old pioneers and 10-year-old pioneers, their parents evidently were pioneers, and they took their children with them in their preaching work.

(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 for the leaders 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 were 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 to do with disfellowshipped persons.

 In the 2018 edition of the book, there is a cover-up, and the quoted texts are 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 of each Witness decides whether to have contact with disfellowshipped persons.

The second example is the 2016 video about Sonja Erichsson, which shows that a mother must not answer the phone 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, which allowed saying a short greeting to disfellowshipped and disassociated persons who were not promoting apostate teachings or wrong conduct, and to invite such a person to a meeting. But the total isolation remains.

 ————————

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, WHERE THE WORDS ME SYBNAMIGNYMI ALSO OCCUR, SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS THOSE WHO WOULD NOT FOLLOW PAUL’S WORDS IN HIS LETTERS TO THE THESSALONIANS.

THE ONLY THING THE DISFELLOWSHIPPED PERSON WOULD LOSE WOULD BE THE FELLOWSHIP WITH OTHER CHRISTIANS IN THEIR SPARE TIME. 

———————————

ADDITION

THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF AUSTRALIA AND SHUNNING

The Royal Commission of Australia examined how Jehovah’s Witnesses treated situations where children  had been sexually abused. Between July 27 o and August 14, 2015, a public hearing was performed. A report of the hearing and of other information that the Commission had gathered was written. Below, I will quote from the hearing and from the report.

The Counsel Assisting, Angus Stewart, who questioned the witnesses, pointed out that if a woman who had been abused did not feel safe in the congregation because her abuser still was present, and she wanted to leave, she had two choices: either to resign from the congregation and lose all her family and friends, or stay in the congregation where she did not feel safe. Because of this, he questioned Terrence O’Brien, the coordinator (leader) of the Australia Branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the Governing Body in the USA.

TERRENCE O’BRIEN TESTIFYING IN THE COURT

(The hearing, pages 15848 to 15852)

Stewart: Can I take you to tab 120. That’s Shepherd the Flock of God at page 115. Do you see in paragraph 5 – this chapter 10 is headed ‘Matters Related to Disfellowshipped and Disassociated Ones”, and you will see in paragraph 5 It says:

Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are generally expected to make their own arrangements for transportation to and from congregation meetings. However, in some instances a disfellowshipped ordisassociated individual who is making a determined effort to regain a right standing with Jehovah may be in asituation that prevents him from obtaining transportation. It may be that he has no car and that family members or others are not able to help him. Perhaps he cannot afford public transpor tation, or it is not available in his area. It may be that the distance involved, personal safety, or severe weather make itinadvisable to walk. In cases of such desperate need, the elders can determine whether some assistance may be provided. (w81 9/15 p. 18 par. 14) Such assistance would be viewed as similar to public transportation inthat there should be no fraternizing or conversing with the disfellowshipped or disassociated person.

That’s the principle, isn’t it? – no conversing or fraternizing with the disassociated person?

O’Brien: That’s correct, yes.

Stewart: Then in the next paragraph:

If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociatedrelatives who are not in the household, elders should counsel and reason with those members of the congregation from the Scriptures.

So, the position is that if a disassociated person is in the same household as a Jehovah’s Witness on everyday matters in the household, there can be that association. But if they are not in the same household, the same rules apply as if they were not in the same family?

O’Brien:  Yes, so with disfellowshipping and disassociation, if they live in the same household, then it’s understood that it’s referring, then, to spiritual association. Obviously, if it is a husband or wife or a child or mother or father, of necessity, there has to be conversation. But it’s the spiritual association that would now be restricted.

Stewart:  But if they are not in the same household, then social association is also restricted?

O’Brien: Yes, kept to a minimum at least.

Stewart:   You see there is then a reference there? Review with them information from the “God’ Love” book, pages 207, 208…I would like to take you to that. Part of this document is already in the tender bundle, but not this part. So, are we to understand these pages here, 207 and 208, are the guidance that is being referred to at what we were looking at a moment before – is that right?

O’Brien: That is correct, yes.

Stewart:    You will see halfway down page 207, starting on the right-handed side, it says:

The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, stated: “A simple ‘Hello’ —

O’Brien: Sorry, I have just missed where you are. Paragraph 2.

Stewart:     Yes, halfway down the page:

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 the first step with a disfellowshipped person?

Now, are we to understand that as applying also to a disassociated person, aren’t we?

O’Brien: Yes.

Stewart:   Then the question is asked: Is strict avoidance really necessary?  And the answer is:

Yes, for several reasons. First it is a matter of loyalty to God and his Word. We obey Jehovah not only when it is convenient but also when doing so present real challenges. Love for God moves us to obey all his commandments..,and so on.

At the foot of the next page, 208, starting the second line from the bottom, you will see it says:

Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative. —

That applies also to a disassociated relative, not so: not living at home.  

O’Brien: Yes.

Stewart:   Then:

Rather, loyalty to Jehovah and his organization moved 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.

Indeed, there are other publications that set out these forms of principle, aren’t there?

O’Brien: That is true, yes, that’s an understanding I have.

Stewart:   Now, the consequence of the scenario that I’ve put to you is that this survivor of abuse, who wishes to leave the organization, is put to a choice, isn’t she: she either stays in the organization or she leaves and, thereby, potentially loses her whole family, or much of it, depending on how many remain in the Witnesses, and her social network?

O’Brien: No, I think there’s that other option that you have missed here, by just ceasing her activity in the congregation –

Stewart:   Well. I am presupposing, Mr O’Brien, that her feeling is sufficiently intense that she wishes to disassociate from the congregation.

O’Brien:  Yes. So, then she would appreciate the implication of that.

Stewart:    Yes. And her friends and family would face the implication, too, that they would have to disassociate from her.

O’Brien:  Yes.

Stewart:    It is an impossible choice, isn’t it? I mean, no-one is it not right, Mr O’Brien — should be put to the choice of remaining in an organization which she feels is protective of her abuser, and losing her family and her social network.

O’Brien:  Well, I can only be guided by what the scriptures say on that.

Stewart:    Well, do you accept that it is psychologically devastating and cruel?

O’Brien:  The whole purpose of disfellowshipping or disassociation is to help the person see the benefits of associating, so a disassociated person, a disfellowshipped person, is free to come back. A disassociated person particularly, they don’t have to go through a lengthy procedure to come back, whereas a disfellowshipped person has to prove their repentance suitably.

Stewart: It makes the organization a captive organization, doesn’t it?

O’Brien:  I don’t follow what you mean by that.

Stewart: Well, it makes it incredibly hard for someone to leave because of the huge pain, suffering, cruelty she must face if she does leave.

O’Brien:  I don’t believe so.

Stewart: Do you appreciate, Mr O’Brien that this point of shunning, as it is called, is the one that probably makes people the most angry around the world amongst the ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses?

O’Brien:  But if it is disassociation – again it’s a choice they make. They don’t have to disassociate themselves to stop associating, They don’t lose their spiritual or familiar association by being inactive.

The leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia, Terrence O’Brien, confirms that if a Witness is disfellowshipped or resigns, he or she will lose his or her family and friends. But he points out correctly that a woman can “cease her activity” in the congregation, i.e., she can stop all contact with the congregation without telling anyone.

But the point in our context is that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons lose their family and friends, and that there is “no conversing or fraternizing” with such persons.

O’Brien confirms that it is a demand from the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses to shun and isolate disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses.  It is not correct that each Witness will, because of his or her conscience, decide how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses.  

GEOFFREY JACKSON TESTIFYING IN THE COURT

(Public hearing pages 15980, 15981)

Stewart:  It’s right, isn’t it, that in the case of both disassociation and disfellowshipping, the remaining members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot associate with the disassociated or disfellowshipped person?

Jackson:   Yes, that’s according to the Bible principles, which I’m sure you have already read.

Stewart:  And that includes even family members not living in the same household?

Jackson:   That is correct.

Stewart:  So, someone who wants to leave the organization must choose, you accept, between freedom from the organization on the one hand and friends, family and social network on the other?

Jackson:   I thought I made it quite clear that I don’t agree with that supposition.  Are you talking about a gross sin that has been committed or someone who just wants to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Let me clarify it.  If someone no longer wants to be an active Jehovah’s Witness and they are not in the community viewed as a Jehovah’s Witness, we do not have a so‐called spiritual police force to go and handle that.

Stewart:  Mr Jackson, you are agreeing on the example of what they do wrong.  That’s not my point.  My point is they may do nothing wrong, but they are still subject to the rules of the organisation in the event that at some point they do do something wrong?

Jackson:   I will agree with that.  But I don’t agree with the sweeping statement that they only have the two choices. That was the point I was disagreeing with.

Stewart:  Well, it’s right, then, isn’t it, because if they don’t want to be subject to the discipline and rules of the organisation, then they have to leave by actively dissociating; isn’t that the truth?

Jackson:  ‘if they definitely don’t want to be, yes.

Stewart:  Yes.

Jackson:   But there are some that do not want to make that active move.

Stewart:  Well, the result, then, is that they are faced with the choice between freedom from the organisation on the one hand and having to lose their family and friends and social network on the other? 

Jackson:   That’s how you would like to put it, Mr Stewart, but I thought I’m trying to say that there are those, some of whom I have heard of, that just fade away and they are not actively Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

Stewart:  And, Mr Jackson, you have put it that they have a choice to leave or not to leave.  For someone who wants to leave, perhaps because they have suffered abuse by someone in the organisation and don’t feel that it has been treated properly or adequately, it’s a very difficult choice, isn’t it, because they must choose ‐‐

 Jackson:  I agree, yes.

 Stewart:  And it can be personally devastating, because they can lose their whole social network and their families?

Jackson:   That can be the case, yes.

 

Jackson confirms that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person will lose all his family and friends. Stewart then asks whether an abused woman who wants to leave has only two choices, either to lose her family and friends by disassociating or stay in the congregation against her will. Jackson says correctly the same as O’Brien said, that she has a third choice, “just fade away.” This means that a person can stop associating with Jehovah’s Witnesses without telling anyone. In that case she will not lose her family and friends. But he confirms that if a woman who has been abused, wants to leave the congregation, that can be “personally devastating” for her because she loses family and friends, her whole network.

The basic conclusions of the Royal Commission of Australia were presented in the report:

Report of case study No.29 The response of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watch Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd. to allegations of child sexual abuse

October 2016:

Both Terrence O’Brien and Geoffrey Jackson confirmed that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons will lose their family and friends and be isolated from these. An important question is whether this isolation from family and friends can be interpreted and practiced differently by different Witnesses. The answer to this question is No:

Quotation from page 22 in the report:

Mr Jackson and Mr Spinks[1] both accepted that the Governing Body may change its interpretation of the Scriptures from time to time. However, several witnesses, including Mr Jackson, told the Royal Commission that there was no scope for flexibility in the interpretation of the Scriptures in relation to:

• scriptural standards of proof
• the practice of shunning
• the practice of disfellowshipping (or expelling from the congregation) unrepentant individuals and reproving repentant individuals
• the reinstatement of disfellowshipped individuals who demonstrate genuine repentance
• there being no role for women as decision-makers in the organisation’s internal disciplinary process.

The Counsel Assisting, Angus Stewart, of the Royal Commission asked many questions about the practice of shunning and its consequences for those who would resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Above I have quoted from the exchange between the prosecutor and Terrence O’Brien and Geoffrey Jackson, where both confirm that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons lose their family and friends.

The Report draws conclusions on the basis of what Jehovah’s Witnesses have written to the Commission and the exchange between the Counsel Assisting and different Jehovah’s Witnesses. I quote extensively from pages 70 and 71 in the report:

7.7 SHUNNING

Jehovah’s Witnesses are counselled against associating, fraternising or conversing with a person who has been disfellowshipped or who has chosen to disassociate from the Jehovah’s Witness organisation. This practice is known as ‘shunning’.

Even family members are instructed not to associate with a disfellowshipped or disassociated relative unless the association is unavoidable – for example, if they share a house with the person.

Violation by a Jehovah’s Witness of the decree against associating with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person may itself, in certain circumstances, be a disfellowshipping offence.

There is evidence before the Royal Commission of the difficulty that people experience in deciding to leave the Jehovah’s Witness organisation because of the fear of being shunned by friends and loved ones.

BCG [a sexually abused Witness] told the Royal Commission that, when she decided to leave the Jehovah’s Witness organisation, she and her three children ‘were completely shunned, ostracised and actively avoided by members’ of the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses that she had left.

Shunning and survivors of child sexual abuse

It is conceivable that a survivor of child sexual abuse may no longer wish to be part of, or subject to the rules and discipline of, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation at all. This might be the case especially if they feel that their complaint of abuse was not dealt with adequately or if their abuser remains in the organisation.[1]

[1]. The word «survivor» refers to a person who have been sexually abused but who continue to live.

 As discussed above, a survivor’s decision to actively leave (disassociate from) the organisation would typically result in that person being shunned by other members of the organisation.

Also, it is conceivable, if not likely, that a survivor’s entire family and social networks comprise members of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation. A survivor of child sexual abuse may therefore be faced with the impossible choice between staying in an organisation which is protective of their abuser in order to retain their social and familial network and leaving the organisation and losing that entire network as a result.

Mr Geoffrey Jackson gave evidence that the decision to disassociate and leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses was a ‘difficult’ one that can be ‘personally devastating because [a person] can lose their whole social network and their families’.

The Watchtower & Ors submitted that the Royal Commission’s consideration of the practice of shunning is ‘outside the Terms of Reference and has no immediate relevance to institutional responses to child sexual abuse’. We do not agree with this submission. In our view, it is clear that the practice of shunning is an inextricable component of the institutional response to child sexual abuse.

The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.

The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s policy of requiring its members to shun and actively avoid those who leave (or disassociate from) the organisation:

• makes it extremely difficult for a person to leave the organisation
• can be upsetting for those who leave and for their friends and family who remain behind
• can be particularly devastating for those who have suffered child sexual abuse in the organization and who wish to leave because they feel that their complaints about it have not been dealt with adequately or because their abuser remains in the congregation.

CONCLUSION

The Royal Commission of Australia found that the policy of the Governing Body is that all members, including family and friends, must shun disfellowshipped and disassociated persons. This means that these are isolated and lose their whole network.

Geoffrey Jackson of the Governing Body confirmed that there is no flexibility in the action of shunning people, which means that each member cannot decide how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and disassociated members.

Jackson confirmed that because of the practice of shunning of those who wanted to resign, this process could be difficult and personally devastating for them. The Commission found that the threat of being shunned was a strong pressure for not resigning.

[1]. Mr. Rodney Spinks is the elder who is in charge of the Service Department at the Branch Office.