THE GOVERNING BODY MAKING THE DIVINE GIFT OF SEX FILTHY (III) DISFELLOWSHIPPING ON THE BASIS OF LEWD THOUGHTS AND INCLINATIONS

THE ARBITRARINESS AND AMBIGUITY OF THE DEFINITIONS OF THE GOVERNING BODY

I apply the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:9 to the definitions of abhorrent forms of pornography. He writes:

In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air.

Some brothers who are elders today lived an un-Christian life before they became Witnesses. But because I know a great number of elders in Norway, I assume that most elders have no experience with or an idea of what several of the abhorrent forms of pornography really mean. And what about the members of the Governing Body themselves? Do they have a personal experience, or de they know exactly what each abhorrent form means? If not, the Governing Body has been “speaking” into the air.” And the elders who use the definitions of the Governing Body are “speaking in the air” as well. How can the elders make a balanced judgement if they do not know the meaning of the law they use for judgement, or if the language of the law is unclear?

Nine different forms of abhorrent pornography have been mentioned in the literature since 2006. Two of these seem to me to be relatively easy to identify, namely, sadistic torture and gang rape. I do not know how such actions are portrayed in pornographic films. But I think there may be a difference between films that only show the mentioned actions, and films where one of many scenes expresses sadistic torture or gang rape. Will a brother be guilty in seeing abhorrent forms of pornography if he does not stop the film when such a scene is shown? The members of a judicial committee must make decisions in “grey areas,” as well as when the definitions of particular actions are quite clear.

The next form is sadomasochistic sex. I have no idea of the meaning of this kind of sex. But I found the following definition on the Internet:

The derivation of sexual gratification from the infliction of physical pain or humiliation either on another person or on oneself.[1]

I assume that infliction of physical pain can be seen in many instances in a pornographic film.  But is it easy to distinguish between a small pain and a big one? And does a small pain count as a pain? And what about humiliation? How can that be expressed in a film? The elders may ask: Were any people in the films you have viewed afflicted with pain or humiliated? And, the affliction of pain or the humiliation, was it voluntary or forced? To give a clear answer to these questions can be difficult. This ambiguity may also be the reason why “sadomasochistic sex” is only mentioned in the letter of June 21, 2006.

The next form I have is the concept bondage. What actually does it mean?

I found the following definition on Wikipedia.

Bondage, in the BDSM subculture, is the practice of consensually tying, binding, or restraining a partner for erotic, aesthetic, or somatosensory stimulation. A partner may be physically restrained in a variety of ways, including the use of rope, cuffs, bondage tape, or self-adhering bandage.

Bondage itself does not necessarily imply sadomasochism. Bondage may be used as an end in itself, as in the case of rope bondage and breast bondage. It may also be used as a part of sex or in conjunction with other BDSM activities. The letter “B” in the acronym “BDSM” comes from the word “bondage”. Sexuality and erotica are an important aspect in bondage, but are often not the end in itself. Aesthetics also plays an important role in bondage.

A common reason for the active partner to tie up their partner is so both may gain pleasure from the restrained partner’s submission and the feeling of the temporary transfer of control and power. For sadomasochistic people, bondage is often used as a means to an end, where the restrained partner is more accessible to other sadomasochistic behaviour. However, bondage can also be used for its own sake. The restrained partner can derive sensual pleasure from the feeling of helplessness and immobility, and the active partner can derive visual pleasure and satisfaction from seeing their partner tied up.[2]

The description above shows that “bondage” can be expressed in many different ways. We see that bondage does not necessarily include the use of force by only one of the participants of the sex act. But both can experience satisfaction. The elders want to find out whether the person has seen films illustrating bondage, and they ask: “Have you seen films where one of the sex partners was bound or handcuffed?” The brother answers: “Yes, I have seen some films where the woman was bound to the bed with a rope.” “Did the man force the woman to be bound?” No, in most of them, the woman stretched out her hands to be bound.” Is the brother guilty of seeing bondage in the sense of abhorrent pornography mentioned by the Governing Body? To answer this question is very difficult.

The next concept is the brutalizing of women. This concept is vague, and it may be difficult for elders on a judicial committee to determine whether a brother is guilty. A search on the Internet gave only one discussion of the issue:

According to a 2010 study that analyzed 304 scenes from best-selling pornography videos, almost 90% of scenes contained physical aggression, while nearly 50% contained verbal aggression, primarily in the form of name-calling. Targets of these displays of aggression were overwhelmingly women and either showed pleasure or neutrality in response to the aggression. Some studies that have shown nearly 90% of pornography depicts violence while other studies have placed the prevalence at only 2%  One of the most disturbing facts about the prevalence of violence in porn is that nobody can agree on what they consider to be violent content.  What can be proven rather definitively is the association between pornography use in general and violence against women.[3]

The question is what is meant by the word “brutalizing.” The quotation mentions physical aggression and verbal aggression, which may be close to the word “brutalizing.” But we also learn that the women “either showed pleasure or neutrality in response to the aggression.” So, if many women showed pleasure in connection with the aggression, the aggression must have been a part of the sexual play. The fact that some studies have found violence in 90% of pornographic films, while others have found a prevalence of only 2%, shows that the definition of “brutalizing of women” is ambiguous and difficult. So, it must be difficult for the elders to find out whether a brother has seen pornographic films showing the “brutalizing of women.”

Then I will discuss group sex. One definition is:

sexual activity involving three or more people.

Viewing group sex was not a disfellowshipping offense in 2006, but it became such an offense in 2012. The definition is clear-cut. But there may be a great number of grey areas. For example, if a brother views pornographic films with two participants, and then one or more scenes with three participants are shown, must he quit the film? If this happens several times, must he quit the films each time, or else he may be disfellowshipped?

Then we come to child pornography. In the USA, there are laws against child pornography:

Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old).  Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images.[4]

The basic definition of child pornography is clear-cut. But as the quotations below shows the practical application of the definition may be difficult:

Most professionals and lay people would probably argue that they know what child pornography is. While it is a relatively easy concept to define when one refers to the “typical” forms (e.g. a photograph of a pre-pubescent child engaged in a sexual act), it becomes less easy to define when the image is less graphic (e.g. a photograph of a 16-year-old girl topless). This article considers the challenges that arise when drafting an adequate legal instrument to tackle child pornography. It considers at what age a person is “a child”, what types of material should be considered as pornography and what it is about material that makes it child pornography. The article concludes that child pornography is not an easy concept to define and that tension will always arise between the desire to criminalize exploitative material and personal freedoms such as expression and free speech.[5]

Child pornography existed long before computers and the Internet, but the Internet has become the most versatile medium for accessing illegal materials. The increasing number of individuals who create, possess, and distribute child pornography has raised concern regarding the use of the Internet by individuals who have a sexual interest in children. Currently, professionals face controversies regarding the definition and impact of child pornography. These issues are then affected by the nature of the actions depicted in child pornography, the different professional perspectives examined, and variation among international jurisdictions. This chapter focuses on legal and clinical issues in defining child pornography, while providing an overview of the breadth of the issue of online child sexual exploitation. Difficulties in creating an international legal definition of child pornography are discussed and comparisons are made on the intersection of legal and clinical significance of problematic pornographic materials.[6]

The basic definition of child pornography is:

any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old).

Suppose that there is a judicial case, and the elders ask the brother, “Have you viewed child pornography?,” and the brother answers No. “Have you viewed pictures of topless girls around 16 years old?” “I have seen several such pictures, but I do not know the ages of the girls. Do you mean that such pictures represent forbidden child pornography?”  This is a good question because, according to the US definition, pictures of topless girls up to 17 years and 11 months are “child pornography.” At least, if the pictures showed a boy and a girl together, naked or half-naked, that would be child pornography. But if the two were exactly 18 years to the day, it would not be child pornography.

My point with these examples shows that it is not easy to know what “child pornography” is, neither for the elders nor for a young brother. In order to find out whether the brother is guilty of viewing “child pornography,” the elders must make their own definition and then ask the brother several intimate questions. This is an ambiguous situation.

We then come to homosexual sex. The definition is clear: “Sex between persons of the same sex.” But again, there may be situations that are not clear. For example, a brother views a film with a scene where a man and a woman have sex. Then the man disappears, and another woman enters the room. The two women start kissing, and the brother watches them for some time. Is he guilty of viewing homosexual pornography? What if the women are caressing each other’s breasts? Is this homosexual pornography?

I will now consider bestiality. The definition is as follows:

Sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal… display or gratification of bestial traits or impulses.[7]

Do the members of the Governing Body include both sides of this definition, both sex with a lower animal and bestial traits or impulses in between humans of opposite sexes?  The quotation is from a lexicon, so at the outset, elders who look for a definition will think that both definitions are included. This can make it difficult to be certain that a person is guilty of viewing bestiality.

Several more questions could have been asked in connection with each of the nine cases of “abhorrent pornography.” But the questions asked illustrate that each one has ambiguous or unclear sides.

The judicial committee must ask a great number of questions in their interrogation of the brother, in order to find out whether the Witness is guilty of viewing “abhorrent forms of pornography.” And even after all these questions,  the decision, in most cases, will be based on the gut feelings of the members of the judicial committee.

When we have the laws and principles of the Christian Greek Scriptures in mind, we realize that the disfellowshipping offense of seeing abhorrent pornography violates most of what we believe is righteous and just.

First: The definition of pornography that is abhorrent is arbitrary and has changed. Between 2006 and 2012, persons who viewed group sex and homosexual sex were not disfellowshipped. But from 2012 onward and until today, these two forms of pornography are viewed as disfellowshipping offenses.

Second: Seven of the nine abhorrent forms of pornography are vague and fuzzy, and in each case, there are several situations where it is difficult for the elders to know if a Witness is guilty of having viewed this form of pornography. The situation is even more complicated because we must assume that the elders have no personal knowledge of the meaning of each of the abhorrent forms.

Third: It is impossible to read the thoughts of other people, and it is just as impossible to interpret the thoughts of others on the basis of what they do. Nevertheless, the elders are instructed that if a person over time views one or more of the abhorrent forms of pornography, his thoughts and inclinations are perverse and wicked, and he deserves to be disfellowshipped.

[1]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sadomasochism.

[2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_(BDSM).

[3]. https://www.focusforhealth.org/how-pornography-impacts-violence-against-women-and-child-sex-abuse/.

[4]. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography.

[5]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233476550_Legal_definitions_of_child_pornography.

[6]. https://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780199945597.001.0001/med-9780199945597-chapter-10.

[7]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bestiality.

“GROSS UNCLEANNESS WITH GREEDINESS” INDICATES THOUGHTS AND INCLINATIONS

The book for elders, Shepherd the flock of God (2025) has the following heading in Appendix A:

GROSS UNCLEANNESS, UNCLEANNESS WITH GREEDINESS

Actions that are subsumed under this heading are:

13 Momentary Touching of Intimate Body Parts or Caressing of Breasts:

14. Immoral Conversations Over the Telephone or the Internet:
15. Viewing pornography
16. Misuse of Tobacco or Marijuana and Abuse of Medical, Illicit, or Addictive Drugs:
17. Extreme Physical Uncleanness:

Under point 13, we read:

Momentary Touching of Intimate Body Parts or Caressing of Breasts: Counsel from two elders may suffice if such conduct occurred on a few isolated occasions, especially between two individuals involved in a courtship with the intent to marry. However, if the conduct escalated in gravity and frequency, it may become gross uncleanness with greediness.

The concept “gross uncleanness, uncleanness with greediness” is an umbrella term for the five distinct actions that constitute disfellowshipping offenses that we see above.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GREEDINESS AND COVETOUSNESS

Most readers do not see much difference in “greediness” (Greek: pleonexia) and covetousness (Greek: epithymia). Oxford Learner’s Dictionary has the following definition

Greed: A strong desire for more wealth, possessions, power, etc. than a person needs. [1]

Covetousness: The feeling of having a strong desire for the things that other people have.[2]

According to this Lexicon, both “greed” and “desire” include strong desire, and the difference is that “covetousness” means to have a strong desire for the property of others, while greed means to have a strong desire to enrich oneself with any possessions.

The word “greed” can also have a stronger definition, as we see in the note on pleonexia in NWT13 Romans 1:29:

Greed: Or: “covetousness.” The Greek word pleonexia literally means “having more” and denotes an insatiable desire to have more.

This note is strange because it claims that “greed” and “covetousness” are synonyms, which is not the case. While the rendering “greed” for pleonexia in different Bible translations may have the definition “a strong desire for more wealth,” as we see in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary above, the rendering “greed” in NWT13 has the much stronger meaning of “an insatiable desire to have more,” according to the note to Romans 1:29 in NWT13.

While “covetousness” is a strong desire to have something belonging to others, this desire can be satisfied. But “greed,” as it is defined in NWT13, can never be satisfied.

There is no Hebrew or Greek word with the meaning “an insatiable desire to have more,” i.e., a desire that cannot be satisfied.

Different Greek-English Lexicons show that pleonexia can refer to a strong desire to have more, but it can also refer to the action of getting more by exploitation or extortion. The exact meaning of pleonexia can be found only by studying the contexts in which the word occurs.

I have made a study of pleonexia and related forms in the Septuagint and the Hebrew words it translates, as well as in the Christian Greek Scriptures. My conclusion is that pleonexia in The Christian Greek Scriptures has the meaning “exploited gain” (to get more by exploitation or extortion), and never has the meaning of “a strong desire to have more,” or “an insatiable desire to have more.”[1]

[1]. «The 11 disfellowshipping offenses 1: Not ‘greed’ but ‘exploitation’ (pleonexia)” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/11/19/the-11-disfellowshipping-offenses-1-not-greed-but-exploitation/)

One example of the meaning of “exploited gain” or “extortion” is 2 Corinthians 9:5:

Therefore I thought it necessary to encourage the brothers to come to YOU in advance and to get ready in advance YOUR bountiful gift previously promised, that thus this might be ready as a bountiful gift and not as something extorted (pleonexia).

TWISTING THE WORD PLEONEXIA — A FALSE BASIS FOR NEW DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES

A word can have one or more meanings and one or more references. How can we find the meaning of a Greek word in the Christian Greek Scriptures? The way to find the meaning is to study the contexts where the word occurs. There are some basic rules in lexical semantics (the study of how words acquire meaning).

The entries in a Greek-English Lexicon are not the lexical meanings of Greek words. They are just glosses showing how a word in the original text has been translated into the target language, and other possibilities for the meaning of the word. The basic error made by those who define Greek words in the Watchtower literature is that they consult different Greek-English lexicons, find an entry that fits their theology, and then claim that this is the word’s meaning or reference in The Christian Greek Scriptures.

I illustrate this with the NWT13’s definitions of pleonexia and “greed” using the Hebrew word kæræn. The meaning of this word is “horn.” A horn can be used to store liquids, and one reference of kæræn is “receptacle.” It is possible to blow in a horn, and another reference is “trumpet.” At sunrise and sunset, the beams of the sun look like big horns, and a third reference of kæræn is “beam of light.”

The references of kæræn are very different, and it is obvious that only the context can tell whether to use “horn, receptacle, trumpet, or beam of light” as a translation. However, those at the Watchtower Society who have decided the meaning of the Greek word pleonexia made the same error as Jerome and Michelangelo in connection with kæræn (kāran).

When Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets containing the ten commandments (Exodus 34:29), his face was radiant and emitted light rays (kāran). When Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, he misunderstood the verb kāran as referring to “horn.” Therefore, he used the Latin noun cornu “horn” and the adjective cornutus “horned.” Michelangelo read about Moses in the Vulgate and created a statue of him with two horns.

The Greek word pleonexia has different meanings and references, as the Greek-English Lexicon of Mounce shows:

some advantage which one possesses over another; an inordinate desire of riches, covetousness, Lk. 12:15; grasping, overreaching, extortion, Rom. 1:29; 1 Thess. 2:5; a gift exacted by importunity and conferred with grudging, a hard-wrung gift, 2 Cor. 9:5; a scheme of extortion.

The members of the Governing Body, through the translators of NWT13, used the English word “greed” with the definition “and insatiable desire for more” for pleonexia. I have never seen any Classical Greek text with a clause with pleonexia where the context unambiguously shows that the meaning is “an insatiable desire for more.” I do not claim that this meaning does not exist. But if it exists, it is very rare, and is just as far from the way pleonexia is used in Classical Greek, as “beam of light” is from horn.”

The NWT13 translators misunderstood the meaning of pleonexia, just as Jerome and Michelangelo did with kāran. And they found the rare meaning “an insatiable desire for more.” Jerome and Michelangelo acted in good faith. But the members of the Governing Body had a motive for their choice of definition. These men have an extreme view of cleanness and purity inside the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not only have they created 37 disfellowshipping offenses in addition to the 11 ones found in The Christian Greek Scriptures. But they have also started to disfellowship persons because of their thoughts and attitudes.

They needed some backing from the Christian Greek Scriptures for this, and therefore, they rendered pleonexia as “greed” with the definition “an insatiable desire for more.” Based on this, they have instructed the elders to look for “uncleanness with greediness” in actions that have a moral aspect. The word “greediness” is related to thoughts and attitudes, and when the elders find greediness in a Witness, he or she will be disfellowshipped because of his or her thoughts and attitudes.

No word in Hebrew or Greek has the meaning “an insatiable desire to have more.” Thus, the term “greediness” with the definition “an insatiable desire to have more” in the disfellowshipping umbrella term “uncleanness with greediness” is pure fiction.

[1]. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/greed?q=Greed

[2]. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/covetousness?q=Covetousness

THE INTERROGATION NEEDED TO FIND OUT WHETHER A WRONGDOER HAS AN INSATIABLE DESIRE FOR MORE

The word “greediness” is connected with the thoughts and inclinations of individuals. According to the members of the Governing Body, can greediness lead to disfellowshipping. But how can the elders in the judicial committee find out whether the actions of a wrongdoer are based on an insatiable desire to have more, a desire that cannot be satisfied? The only way is to interrogate the wrongdoer.

But this is fraught with problems, both because many of the actions the members of the Governing Body have defined as disfellowshipping offenses are ambiguous, and because it is very difficult to know the thoughts and inclinations of other human beings. I will add that most elders have no training in interrogation or examination of others.

I use the point “Momentary Touching of Intimate Body Parts or Caressing of Breasts” from the Elders’ book as an example:

Momentary Touching of Intimate Body Parts or Caressing of Breasts: Counsel from two elders may suffice if such conduct occurred on a few isolated occasions, especially between two individuals involved in a courtship with the intent to marry. However, if the conduct escalated in gravity and frequency, it may become gross uncleanness with greediness. Their wrongdoing may also constitute brazen conduct if they give evidence of a disrespectful, insolent attitude toward God’s laws. For example, the individuals may have no intentions of pursuing marriage.

The main points here that the elders must consider are the gravity and frequency of  actions that can indicate whether a person is greedy or not. How can the elders find that out? The Elders’ book refers to The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, page 29, where we read:

Suppose an engaged couple indulged in passion-arousing heavy petting on numerous occasions. ‘The elders might determine that even though these individuals did not manifest a brazen attitude characterizing loose conduct, there was a measure of greediness in their conduct. So the elders might take judicial action because gross uncleanness (this word in italics) was involved. Gross uncleanness might also be appropriate grounds for handling a case involving a person who repeatedly makes sexually explicit telephone calls to another person, especially if he was previously counseled about the matter.

The elders need discernment in making such judgments. To determine whether judicial action is warranted, they must carefully look at what happened and the extent to which it was done. It is not a matter of charging with loose conduct anyone who does not accept Scriptural counsel; nor is it a case of deciding mathematically how many times a person can commit a certain sinful act before judicial action is required. Elders should carefully and prayerfully weigh each situation and find out what occurred and how often, the nature and extent of the misconduct, and the intent and motive of the wrongdoer.

The center of attention of the elders should be “the intent and motive of the wrongdoer” which means that the focus is on the thoughts and inclinations of the wrongdoer.

The instruction in the quotation shows that the elders must pose many intimate questions, which justifies my use of the word “interrogation.” It also shows how difficult it is for the elders to determine whether one or both persons harbor wicked thoughts and inclinations that warrant removal from the congregation. I will look at some of the details.

Passion-arousing petting. A number of intimate questions are necessary to find the nature of the actions. How did the kissing occur? Did they touch intimate parts? If so, which intimate parts? And how did the touching occur. Did they plan to do this, or did it just happen?

On numerous occasions. This question shows how much the elders’ gut feeling will influence their decision to disfellowship or not. Some elders will view “numerous occasions” as two or three times, while others will view it as seven or eight times or more.

A brazen attitude. Humans react differently in stress situations when they are accused of something. Some will cry and shed tears, and it is clearly seen that they feel shame for their actions. Others stiffen and adopt a poker face, which can be interpreted as a brazen attitude.

The two young people will be questioned separately. They may give different answers to the same questions because they remember the situations differently. This can be viewed as lying and  interpreted as a brazen attitude.

A measure of greediness. This expression is a contradiction of terms. The word “greediness” is defined as “an insatiable desire to have more.” Speaking of “a measure of an insatiable desire to have more” is self-contradictory. Either a person has an insatiable desire to have more that can never be satisfied, or he does not have this desire.

However, here is the crux of the situation. The members of the Governing Body want the elders to determine whether the person has wicked thoughts and inclinations that warrant disfellowshipping.

And in this situation, we clearly see how the members of the Governing Body have made the divine gift of sex filthy. To consider whether the conduct of one or both of those who have performed heavy petting indicates greediness, many intimate questions need to be asked.

The youngsters may have expressed attraction to each other, which is why they kissed and fondled each other. Suppose the elders now pose the following question to the young man. “Did you want the petting to turn into sexual intercourse with the young woman? If the young man gives the honest answer yes, this answer most likely is taken as evidence of what is called “a measure of greediness,” that he has wicked thoughts and inclinations and deserves to be disfellowshipped.

But please stop and think. Jehovah God has given humans sexual desires with the purpose of producing children and for the pleasure of husband and wife. When two people are attracted to one another, the first step on the way to sexual intercourse is that they kiss each other, and then caress and fondle each other’s bodies. So, when a young man engages in passion-arousing petting, and he is a normal man, his latent or direct desire is to have sexual intercourse with the young woman.

What he feels is normal because it’s part of our nature. If the elders interpret this as evidence of “a measure of greediness” indicating that the young man has wicked thoughts and inclinations, they are very wrong! When they view this as “greediness” — a desire that can never be satisfied — they are very wrong. The supposed “greediness” is the normal attraction between the sexes that is given by God. Thus, the beautiful gift of sex that God has given us is viewed as greed, something that is filthy.

The members of the Governing Body have interpreted the beautiful gift of sex as greed, something that is filthy.

But how can we view two youngsters who are engaged in heavy petting? What is wrong is not the attraction of the two and their feelings that the petting they have started should lead to sexual intercourse. What is wrong is the situation in which two youngsters start a process that may lead to sexual intercourse and the production of children when they are not married and are not ready for this.

When the members of the Governing Body have instructed the elders to look for greed that is based on wicked thoughts and inclinations when youngsters express sexual feelings that God has given them, the beautiful gift of sex is dragged through the mud as something filthy.

It is wrong for unmarried persons to arouse their feelings for one another, a process that normally would lead to sexual intercourse. So, what the elders should do is to help the youngsters avoid situations of heavy petting, not look for wicked motives and thoughts, and punish them by disfellowshipping.

Gross uncleanness. This concept was invented and introduced by the members of the Governing Body. When something is interpreted as “gross uncleanness,” it is a disfellowshipping offense according to the Elders’ book. However, the adjective “gross” is a relative word, and the quantity of uncleanness to be “gross” will be interpreted differently by different people. The use of “gross uncleanness” as a disfellowshipping offense is a clear example of how ambiguous a great number of the disfellowshipping offenses created by the Governing Body are.

The basis for the concepts “gross uncleanness” and “uncleanness with greediness” is the two Greek words aselgeia and akatharsia. My book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, pages 219-239, shows in detail how the members of the Governing Body have applied meanings to these two Greek words that they do not have. The conclusion is that the concepts “gross uncleanness” and “uncleanness with greediness” are figments of imagination, and these figments do not exist.

What is really bad is that thousands of Witnesses have been disfellowshipped because of “gross uncleanness” and “uncleanness with greediness,” concepts that are invented by the members of the Governing Body and have no basis in the Bible.

[1]. See my article, “The 11 disfellowshipping offenses 1: not ‘greed’ but ‘exploitation’.”  (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/11/19/the-11-disfellowshipping-offenses-1-not-greed-but-exploitation/)

DISFELLOWSHIPPING ON THE BASIS OF WICKED THOUGHTS AND INCLINATIONS

Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 that Christians should not be removed from the congregation for one or more wrong actions. Only persons who are permeated by the mentioned wicked actions should be disfellowshipped.

If someone in the congregation would accuse an elder or anyone else of a wrong action, that should only happen if there were two witnesses, as we read in 1 Timothy 5:19:

¹⁹ Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

When Paul wrote to the members of the Corinthian congregation, telling them to stop keeping company with persons who practiced fornication, thievery, extortion, etc., this implies that the sins of these people were visible to all the members of the congregation. That two witnesses are necessary for accusations of wrongdoing also shows that these actions must be visible.

This means that no Christian should be accused of something wrong that is invisible, that is, being accused of having wicked thoughts and inclinations, let alone being disfellowshipped because of wicked thoughts and inclinations.

When the members of the Governing Body have instructed elders to disfellowship members of their congregations for their thoughts and inclinations, this is so far away from Christian principles that it is possible to come!

Let us look at the situation. In the first section, pornography was discussed. The members of the Governing Body have at different times decided that viewing pornography portraying homosexuality, group sex, bestiality, sadistic torture, bondage, sadomasochistic sex, gang rape, brutalizing of women, and child sex were disfellowshipping offenses. But viewing other forms of pornography, while being wrong, would not lead to disfellowshipping.

Why would those who viewed the mentioned forms of pornography be disfellowshipped and not those who viewed other forms of pornography? They could not be disfellowshipped because of the action of viewing pornography. In that case, all who viewed pornography should be disfellowshipped. So, the reason for disfellowshipping must be that they took pleasure in viewing these abhorrent forms of pornography, and this shows that they had perverse and wicked thoughts and inclinations. Thus, they were disfellowshipped for their wicked thoughts and inclinations.

Let us also look at the concept “gross uncleanness with greediness.” I quote one time more a part of the words in The Watchtower of July 15, 2006. page 29:

Suppose an engaged couple indulged in passion-arousing heavy petting on numerous occasions. The elders might determine that even though these individuals did not manifest a brazen attitude characterizing loose conduct, there was a measure of greediness in their conduct. So the elders might take judicial action because gross uncleanness (this word in italics) was involved.

The word “judicial action” means the forming of a committee that will consider disfellowshipping the wrongdoer. We note that a person would not be disfellowshipped for the act of passion-arousing heavy petting. But he would be disfellowshipped if he did this, and his actions were indicated “a measure of greediness.”

This shows that we have the same situation here as in the case of abhorrent pornography. It is not the actions per se that lead to disfellowshipping. But the basis for disfellowshipping is the thoughts and inclinations behind these actions.

The Bible requires two witnesses of visible actions to prove wrongdoing. The members of the Governing Body have instructed the elders to disfellowship Christians for what is invisible, without any witnesses. Christians are disfellowshipped because the elders, after interrogating them, have concluded that their thoughts and inclinations are wicked. —  God’s righteousness is unrecognizable, and his justice has vanished.

In this article, I have discussed situations related to sex because the members of the Governing Body have made the divine gift of sex filthy. But there are a number of other disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body, where the basic reason for disfellowshipping is the thoughts and inclinations of the wrongdoers as well.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE DECISIONS OF A COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH DISFELLOWSHIPPING OR REINSTATEMENT ARE TO A GREAT DEGREE FOUNDED ON  THE MINDREADING OF THE WRONGDOER BY THE ELDERS, BASED ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF HIS ANSWERS TO THEIR QUESTIONS.

CONCLUSION

It is obvious that wrongdoing that should be punished must be visible. Disfellowshipping Witnesses because the elders view their thoughts and inclinations as wicked, clearly, is a violation of Jehovah’s righteousness and justice. Yet this is what the members of the Governing Body have instructed the elders to do.

The whole situation is wrong because the members of the Governing Body use the word “greediness” to describe wicked thoughts and inclinations. Yet, “greediness” with the meaning “an insatiable desire to have more” is neither found in Classical Hebrew nor New Testament Greek.

The setting of the article is the beautiful gift of sex that God has given humans, and how the members of the Governing Body have made a part of this gift filthy. This is seen in the article when the normal desire of a young man to have sexual intercourse with a young woman is said to be greed that can lead to disfellowshipping.

APPENDIX

MECHANICAL DISFELLOWSHIPPING VERSUS DISFELLOWSHIPPING  BASED ON WICKED THOUGHTS AND INCLINATIONS

According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, disfellowshipping is a mechanical process. This means that only actions are considered and not the thoughts and inclinations of the wrongdoer.

1. There are 11 disfellowshipping offenses that are mentioned in the Bible. The members of the Governing Body have invented 37 other disfellowshipping offenses. With no basis in the Bible.
2. No single actions deserve disfellowshipping. Only when a person is permeated by one of the biblical disfellowshipping offenses and practices it, should he be disfellowshipped.
3. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 require that only a person who, at the moment, is practicing one of the disfellowshipping offenses should be disfellowshipped. This means that if there is a judicial committee meeting and the wrongdoer says he stopped his wrongdoing yesterday and has asked God to forgive him, he must not be disfellowshipped, regardless of the seriousness of his wrongdoing or how long he has practiced it.
4. The elders of the judicial committee have only two questions to ask: Has the wrongdoer stopped practicing his sin? And, in that case, has he asked Jehovah’s forgiveness? If the answers are “yes,” the wrongdoer should not be disfellowshipped.
5. When one who has practiced a disfellowshipping offense feels remorse and stops his wrongdoing, he should ask God to forgive him. The elders have nothing to do with his remorse or any questions to ask; this is between the wrongdoer and God. If the wrongdoer says that he has stopped with his wrongdoing and has asked Jehovah to forgive him. The elders must believe his words and reinstate him in the congregation.
6. If these guidelines are followed, the number of disfellowshipped Witnesses will be greatly reduced. My view is that more than 90% of those who have been disfellowshipped should never have been disfellowshipped.[1]

[1]. See the article, The nature of the disfellowshipping offenses in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6 and elsewhere.”  (https://mybelovedreligion.no/wp-admin/post.php?post=16665&action=edit&lang=en)

 

 

 

 

[1]. See the article, The nature of the disfellowshipping offenses in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6 and elsewhere.”  (https://mybelovedreligion.no/wp-admin/post.php?post=16665&action=edit&lang=en)