THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF DISFELLOWSHIPPING IS DOOMED TO DESTRUCTION

CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED FOR WHAT THE ARE NOT FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE

The only places where “disfellowshipping” is mentioned in The Christian Greek Scriptures are in 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13 we read:

¹² For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, ¹³ while God judges those outside? “Remove (exairō) the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”

The verb exairō means “to lift up out of; to remove, eject.” (Mounce) This is the same as to excommunicate, to expel, or to disfellowship. The Governing Body has introduced the term “removed from the congregation” instead of “disfellowshipping,” which accords with Paul’s words.

What sin justified the use of the adjective “wicked” and the man’s removal from the congregation? We find the answer in 5:1:

¹ Actually fornication (porneia) is reported among YOU, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, that a wife a certain [man] has of [his] father.

Literally, the last part of the verse says: “a certain wife of the father having (ekhō).” The man lived together with “his father’s wife” and had sexual intercourse with her. We do not know whether the woman was the man’s mother or stepmother. But by practicing sexual intercourse with her, he was guilty of porneia. What is particularly interesting is that the situation with the man who lived together with his father’s wife is the only pattern for disfellowshipping mentioned in the Scriptures.

Let us take a closer look at the situation. The man was guilty of fornication (porneia) according to 1 Corinthians 5:1, and therefore he was a fornicator (pornos). And fornicators deserve to be removed from the congregation, as 5:13 and 6:9 show. According to Merriam-Webster, the word “fornication” means, “Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.”

The use of “fornication” for porneia and “fornicator” for pornos by NWT84 is excellent. However, NWT13 uses the words “sexual immorality” for porneia and “who are sexually immoral” for pornos. By using words with a wider meaning than “fornication” and “fornicator,” NWT13 is smuggling into the text of the Bible the ideas of the members of the Governing Body that porneia and pornos have other meanings and references than “illicit sexual intercourse” (“fornication” and “fornicator.”)

But this misleads readers. The only meaning that can be construed from the contexts in The Christian Greek Scriptures of porneia and pornos is “illicit sexual intercourse,” that is, “sexual intercourse between persons who are not married to each other.” When the members of the Governing Body have defined other actions than sexual intercourse as porneia and disfellowshipped Witnesses for these actions, they have violated the Word of God.

Let us now return to the important fact that Christians should not be disfellowshipped for what they do but for what they are. The Greek verb in 1 Corinthians 5:1 related to the man is ekhō (“to have”) in present active infinitive, which literally means “having.” The man was removed from the congregation because he was “having” his father’s wife and refused to separate from her.

We must conclude that persons should be removed from the congregation for what they are and not what they do because 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 uses nine nouns and one substantivized adjective, which functions as a noun, to describe the reasons for removing someone from the congregation. Verbs describe actions and nouns describe characteristics and occupations.

The nine nouns and the substantivized adjective in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 are what is called nomen agentis (“agent nouns”), which signifies a man’s profession, such as “fisherman” and “priest.” The Greek noun alieus (“fisherman”) is, for example, derived from the verb alieuō (“to fish”). A fisherman is not a person who has been fishing one, two, or ten times. But a fisherman is a person whose occupation is fishing.

And in a similar way, a pornos is not a person who has been committing porneia (“illicit sexual intercourse”) one, two, or five times. But a pornos is a person whose personality is permeated by porneia (“illicit sexual intercourse”), whose “profession” is to have illicit sexual intercourse.

It is not easy to express the real force of the nouns and the substantivized adjective as something that is practiced. Therefore I quote  1 Corinthians 6:9 in four different versions of the revised NWT in the following order, English, Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish:

⁹ Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality.

⁹ Vet dere ikke at de som gjør urett ikke skal arve Guds rike? Ikke bli villedet. De som praktiserer seksuell umoral, [those who are practicing sexual immorality] de som tilber avguder, de som er utro mot ektefellen sin, menn som praktiserer homoseksuelle handlinger [men who are practicing homosexual actions] eller lar seg bruke til dette.

⁹ Er I ikke klar over at uretfærdige mennesker ikke vil komme til at arve Guds rige? Lad jer ikke vildlede. De der lever et seksuelt umoralsk liv [those who are living a sexually immoral life], tilbeder afguder eller begår ægteskabsbrud, mænd der lader sig bruge til homoseksuelle handlinger, mænd der lever som homoseksuelle [men who are living as homosexuals].

⁹ Vet ni inte att orättfärdiga människor inte ska ärva Guds rike? Bli inte vilseledda. De som lever ett sexuellt omoraliskt liv [those who are living a sexually immoral life], de som tillber avgudar, de som är otrogna mot sin äktenskapspartner, män som utövar homosexualitet [men who are practicing homosexuality]. eller underkastar sig sådant.

The revised Scandinavian translations express the force of the different nomen agentis as something people are and practice, rather than the English version. The weakness of all translations is that they use “sexual immoral life” instead of “illicit sexual intercourse.”

Paul’s words that a person should be removed from the congregation for what he is, not for what he has done, have great consequences. For example: When a policeman has resigned from his position and returned his badge, he is no longer a policeman. This means that regardless of the seriousness of a person’s sins and how long he has practiced these sins, a Witness who has stopped doing his sin before the meeting with the elders should not be disfellowshipped. I will elucidate this later.

Paul’s words show that a person who no longer practices his sin, regardless of how serious the sin is and how long he has practiced it, should not be disfellowshipped.

THE TREATMENT OF A WRONGDOER IN THE LIGHT OF THE BOOKS FOR ELDERS

From the beginning of the elder arrangement in 1972, elders who formed a committee to consider whether or not to remove a person from the congregation were instructed that the meeting’s purpose was, if possible, to help the wrongdoer.  However, through the years, more and more disfellowshipping offenses were invented, and the treatment of wrongdoers became stricter and stricter. As a result, helping the wrongdoer fell into the background.

However, the new 2025 book for elders, Shepherd the Flock of God, puts helping the wrongdoer in the foreground. This is, of course, positive progress.

But the question is how this new, softer approach to wrongdoers blends with the old, stricter view. For example, in the Shepherd book from 2022, chapter 16, is entitled “Procedure for Judicial Hearings.” The requirements for accepting a wrongdoer’s claimed repentance are very strict. This chapter is not in the 2025 Shepherd book. Are the instructions in chapter 16 still valid? If so, it would take away much of the positive force of chapter 7 of the 2025 Shepherd book, entitled: “Leading individuals to repentance.”

I asked two elders about this situation, and both confirmed that they had not received any instruction that chapter 16 of the 2022 Shepherd book no longer is valid. I will later show that the reference in Appendix A 12 in the Shepherd book of 2025 to The Watchtower of  Juli 15, 2006, show that chapter 16 in the 2022 edition still is valid.

This situation causes problems because:

• Members of the Governing Body invented 44 disfellowshipping commandments, and they have no basis in the Bible.
• Several of the 44 disfellowshipping offenses are ambiguous, and elders often base decisions on gut feelings.
• Some disfellowshipping offenses cause the elders to disfellowship Witnesses because of their thoughts and attitudes.
• Some instructions in the Shepherd book of 2022 annul instructions in the Shepherd book of 2025.

THE 44 DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES THAT ARE HUMAN COMMANDMENTS

I have shown that in extreme situations, when a Christian is permeated by serious wrongdoing and has this as his “profession”, he (or she) must be removed from the congregation. Table 1:1 lists 11 situations that can be termed as disfellowshipping offenses.

Table 1.1 List of the eleven disfellowshipping offenses in the Christian Greek Scriptures

pornos	A man or woman who practices illicit sexual intercourse. (1 Cor. 6:9)
eidōlolatrēs	One who participates in idol worship. (1 Cor. 6:9)
kleptēs	A thief. (1 Cor. 6:10)
pleonektēs	An Exploiter (Wrongly written in the Shepherd book as “Greed,” (1 Cor. 6:10).
methysos	A drunkard. (1 Cor. 6:10)
loidoros	A reviler, an abusive person. (1 Cor. 6:10)
harpax	A rapacious person, a robber. (1 Cor. 6:10)
anatrepō	Spreading false teachings. (2 Tim. 2:18; 1 Tim 1:20)
hairesis	Making or promoting a sect. (Titus 3:10)
planos	Joining another religious organization. (2 John 7, 10)
sfazō	Mansalughter — murder. (1 John 3:12)

My book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition (2022), page 202, has a list of 37 disfellowshipping offenses that are invented by the members of the Governing Body. Table 1.2 has a list of the 44 current disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body.[1]

Table 1.2 List of the 44 disfellowshipping offenses that are not based on the Bible

	SEXUAL IMMORALITY
1	Manipulating the sex organs of a person to whom one is not married (porneia).[2]
2	Entering marriage when not scripturally free.
3	Strong circumstantial evidence of porneia.
4	Child abuse
	GROSS UNCLEANNESS, UNCLEANNESS WITH GREEDINESS
5	Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts.
6	Immoral conversations over the telephone or the Internet.
7	Viewing abhorrent forms of pornography.
8	Misuse of tobacco.
9	Use of marijuana, betel nut.
10	Abuse of medical, illicit, or addictive drugs.
11	Extreme physical uncleanness.
	BRAZEN CONDUCT
12	Unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated individuals.
13	Dating, though not Scripturally free to remarry.
14	Brazen conduct in different situations.
	INDEPENDENT ACTIONS
15	Drunkenness
16	Gluttony.
17	Deliberate, malicious lying; bearing false witness.
18	Fraud.
19	Slander.
20	Obscene speech.
21	Gambling.
22	Greed.
23	Refusal to provide for the family.
24	Fits of anger.
25	Violence, domestic violence.
	APOSTASY
26	Celebrating false religious holidays.
27	Participation in interfaith activities.
28	Causing divisions of any kind.
29	Employment promoting false religion.
30	Spiritism.
31	Permitting individuals to commit sexual immorality in the home.
	DISASSOCIATION[3]
32	Indicating a Firm Decision to No Longer be Known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
33	Joining another religious organization.
34	Villingly and Unrepentantly accepting Blood
35	Taking a Course That Violates Christian Neutrality.[4]
	NOT IN THE SHEPHERD BOOK
36	Antigovernment activity.[5]
37	Violation of Secular law.[6]
38	Disagreement with the Governing Body on mundane issues.[7]
39	Oral or anal copulation inside marriage.[8]
40	Bloodguilt.[9]
41	Bride price, high.[10]
42	Professional boxing.[11]
43	Absolute endangerment of mate’s spirituality.[12]
44	Bestiality.[13]

Looking at the 44 disfellowshipping offenses, we immediately understand that they are not based on texts in the Bible. There are detailed studies of each of 37 of the human commandments.[14] Here, I will offer a few comments on the bad nature of some of these 44 human commandments, which I will explain in the section that compares the Shepherd books of 2022 and 2025.

Point 3 (Strong circumstantial evidence of porneia):

It violates the Bible: This disfellowshipping offense directly contradicts the Bible’s law of two or three eyewitnesses to a wrong action. If two unmarried persons spend the night together is the same house of flat, this can be used as evidence for porneia.[15]

Point 41 (Bride price, high):

It is ambiguous: In Africa, it is customary to pay a price to a young woman’s parents when she marries because her family loses her as a worker. The adjective “high” is ambiguous.[16]

Point 22 (Greed):

It is ambiguous; disfellowshipped because of one’s thoughts and inclinations: The gut feeling of the elders must determine whether a Witness is guilty of greed.[17]

Point 10 (Abuse of medical, illicit, or addictive drugs.)

It is ambiguous: In connection with different illnesses and pain, people may be addicted to certain medicines. There may be medical reasons that the elders are not competent to know[18]

Point 5 (Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts.)

It is ambiguous; disfellowshipped because of one’s thoughts and attitudes: The words “Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts.” are connected with “uncleanness with greediness” in both Shepherd books.  The elders must determine whether the mentioned “touching” is motivated by greed. In that case, the person(s) must be removed from the congregation. If there is no greed, the person can remain in the congregation. The person’s thoughts and inclinations are the reason for his removal from the congregation.[19]

Point 7: (Viewing abhorrent forms of pornography):

Ambiguous; disfellowshipped because of one’s thoughts and attitudes. Viewing some forms of pornography is a disfellowshipping offense; viewing other forms is not a disfellowshipping offense. This shows that persons are disfellowshipped because of their thoughts and inclinations. Those who view the kind of pornography the members of the Governing Body view as abhorrent pornography have bad thoughts and inclinations and must be removed from the congregation.[20]

These are just a few comments on a few of the 44 human commandments to illustrate how far these are from the laws and principles of Jehovah God. Particularly bad is it that members are removed from the congregation because of their thoughts and inclinations.

I will now discuss how the committee treats those who are supposed to be guilty of a disfellowshipping offense.

 

[1]. I have made a detailed study of each of the 11 disfellowshipping offenses that are based on the Bible. An overview of each of them is found in Categories — Table of Content — Index of the 11 disfellowshipping offenses. (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/01/index-of-the-11-biblical-disfellowshipping-offenses/)

[2]. The members of the Governing Body have incorrectly ascribed different meanings to porneia. The following article describes this in detail: “Disfellowshipping on the basis of human commandments — the case of porneia.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2023/12/04/disfellowshipping-on-the-basis-of-human-ignorance-the-case-of-porneia/)

[3]. See the article «’Disassociation’ is the same as ‘disfellowshipping’.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/14/disassociation-is-the-same-as-disfellowshipping/)

[4]. A fourth action qualifying as “disassociation” is listed in the Shepherd book (18.3.1): “Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This means that a person cannot resign from JW in the normal sense of the word. If he expresses his intention to leave JW, he has disassociated himself, and that is the same as being disfellowshipped. So, a decision to leave JW could be viewed as a 49th disfellowshipping offense. But because this is a voluntary act of leaving, I have not listed it as a disfellowshipping offense.

[5]. The Watchtower of June 1, 1968, page 31, and The Watchtower of October 1, 1995, page 31. See the Appendix of the article “Jehovah’s discipline — the true regime of disfellowshipping.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2021/10/16/jehovahs-discipline-the-true-regime-of-disfellowshipping/)

[6]. The Watchtower of October 1, 1986, page 31.

[7]. Ibid.

[8]. The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, page 31. Oral and anal sex inside marriage became a disfellowshipping offense and could dissolve marriage in 1974. This was reversed in 1978, when oral and anal sex inside marriage were not a disfellowshipping offense and could not dissolve the marriage. In 1983, came the reversal of the reversal. Oral and anal sex was a disfellowshipping offense, but it could not dissolve the marriage.

[9]. Watchtower Online Library, “Removal from congregation,” The Watchtower, September 15, 2006, page 30.

[10]. «Shepherd the Flock of God” (2022), chapter 12,  point 37. The Watchtower of September 15, 2006, page 25.

[11].  «Shepherd the Flock of God” (2022), chapter 12.  point 34. The reason why points 34 and 37 are not mentioned in Shepherd the Flock of God (2025) may be that these actions are so rare. But the points are still valid.

[12]. Watchtower Online Library, “Removal from congregation,” The Watchtower of November 1, 1988, pages 22, 23.

[13]. Watchtower Online Library, “Removal from congregation,” It-1, page 292.

[14]. I have made a detailed study of each of the 37 disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body. An overview of each of them is found in Categories — Table of Content — Index of the 37 disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body.

(https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/04/05/index-to-the-37-disfellowshipping-offenses-invented-by-the-members-of-the-governing-body/)

[15]. See the article, «Circumstantial evidence for porneia.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2021/01/21/circumstantial-evidence-for-porneia/)

[16]. See the article, “ A high bride price.”  (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2021/06/18/a-high-bride-price/)

[17]. See the article, “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/)

[18]. See the article “Abuse of medical and addictive drugs.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2020/10/17/abuse-of-medical-and-addictive-drugs-2/)

[19]. See the article “The Governing Body making the divine gift of sex filthy (III) The basis for lewd thoughts and inclinations.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/02/26/the-governing-body-making-the-divine-gift-of-sex-filthy-iii-disfellowshipping-on-the-basis-of-lewd-thoughts-and-inclinations/)

[20]. See the article “Viewing abhorrent forms of pornography.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2020/09/29/viewing-abhorrent-forms-of-pornography/), and “The Governing Body making the divine gift of sex filthy (III) The basis for lewd thoughts and inclinations.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/02/26/the-governing-body-making-the-divine-gift-of-sex-filthy-iii-disfellowshipping-on-the-basis-of-lewd-thoughts-and-inclinations/)

THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE 2022 BOOK FOR ELDERS PARTIALLY INVALIDATE THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE 2025 BOOK FOR ELDERS

I have already mentioned that the instructions for treating wrongdoers in the Shepherd books of 2022 and 2025 differ significantly. I will now make a comparison.

The book Shepherd the Flock of God (2025) chapter 7, points 4-8 says:

MEETING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL

4. One of the elders should open the meeting with prayer. The chairman should then state the reason for the meeting. The elders should convey to the individual their sincere desire to be helpful. They should encourage him to express himself freely. (Prov. 28:13; Jas. 5:14, 15) They should inform him that no audio or video recordings of the meeting are permitted. In imitation of Jehovah, they should always treat the individual with kindness and respect, even if he is “not favorably disposed.” — 2 Tim. 2:24-26.
5. The chairman should invite the individual to make a personal statement. The elders should listen patiently and not draw conclusions before they have heard all the relevant facts. (See 7:40-42.) The elders should ask themselves, “Has serious wrongdoing been Scripturally established by a confession or by the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses?” The committee should be thorough but not inquire about needless details, espeially in regard to sexual misconduct. However, details may need to be clarified if the matter involves Scriptural freedom to remarry or if the nature of the Scriptural wrongdoing must be determined.
6. Repentance involves a deep regret over a damaged relationship with Jehovah and the reproach brought upon his name and people. It includes a rejection of the bad course and a longing to come back into Jehovah’s favor. (Rom. 12:9) The goal of the committee is to lead the individual to repentance. The elders should be alert to see any sign of heartfelt repentance. The following Scriptural principles can help the committee to reach the individual’s heart and lead him to repentance:

(1) Kindly help him see the wrongdoing from Jehovah’s perspective. — Job 42:3-6; Isa. 44:18-20.

(2) Strengthen his faith in and love for Jehovah. Help him think about and appreciate what Jehovah has done for him and how Jehovah has dealt with him. (Ps. 77:12; 103:2) This may help him to feel remorse at having brought reproach on Jehovah’s name. — Ps. 51:4.

(3) Help him to understand what led up to his sin. (w24.07 p. 16 pars. 8-11) Did he fall into sin because he neglected personal study or lost his zeal for the ministry? Has he been praying regularly to Jehovah? Has he been allowing wrong desires to guide him? What kind of association and entertainment has he been choosing? How might such choices have affected his heart? How does he think his recent decisions and actions have affected his Father, Jehovah?

(4) Remain gentle and mild even if the person does not respond favorably. (2 Tim. 2:23-26) Sincerely express confidence that the individual wants to do what is right. (Matt. 26:41) In imitation of Jehovah, clearly explain what the individual should do to regain God’s favor. — Isa. 1:16-19.

7. The committee may decide to meet more than once with the individual in order to reach his heart by means of the Scriptures. (w24.08 pp. 22-23 pars. 12-13) This may allow time for him to grasp the gravity of his wrongdoing and its effect on his relationship with Jehovah. And most important, it will allow him time to repent and ask Jehovah for His forgiveness. (Ps. 51:1-4; Prov. 28:13) At the same time, the committee should remember that the decision to repent rests with the individual, not with the elders.
8. Child abuse, apostasy, and scheming to end a marriage require special caution. Also, the committee should exercise particular care if the individual has secretly carried on gross sin over a long period. It may be that he has met with a committee a number of times in the past. Because he appeared repentant, he was reproved each time. Now he has sinned again. In such situations, the committee must carefully evaluate his claim of repentance. — Matt. 3:8.

The way of treating wrongdoers that is described is very positive. That the committee can have more than one meeting with the wrongdoer shows that the motive really is to help wrongdoers to repent.

However, the words of point 5 are strange. The instruction is to find out whether “serious wrongdoing (has) been Scripturally established.” But these words have little meaning in view of the fact that 80% of the disfellowshipping offenses have been invented by the members of the Governing Body and do not have any basis in the Bible.

The book “Shepherd the Flock of God” (2022), chapter 16, points 4-8, says:

DETERMINING GENUINE REPENTANCE

6. In the Bible, two Greek verbs are used in connection with repentance. The first stresses a changed viewpoint or disposition. The second emphasizes a feeling of regret. Therefore, repentance involves a deep regret over a damaged relationship with Jehovah, remorse over the reproach brought upon God’s name and people, and a sincere longing to come back into Jehovah’s favor. It includes a heart-motivated rejection of the bad course as something repugnant, hated. (Rom. 12:9) Such an attitude should be demonstrated by “fruits that befit repentance,” making evident to an adequate degree a sinner’s claimed repentance.—Luke 3:8; it-2 pp. 770-777.
7. Judging repentance is not simply a matter of determining whether the wrongdoer is weak or wicked. Weakness is not synonymous with repentance. Neither should the judicial committee’s decision be determined by the notoriety of the wrong. The judicial committee should look for clear works of repentance commensurate with his wrongdoing. (2 Cor. 7:10, 11) The committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition, that he has a zeal to right the wrong, and that he is absolutely determined to avoid it in the future. Even if this is the individual’s first time before a judicial committee, he must give evidence of genuine repentance if he is to remain in the congregation.
8. The extent to which the person deviates from righteousness may be major or minor, and logically the degree of regret (repentance) ought to be commensurate with the degree of deviation. Was the individual caught off guard so that he momentarily succumbed to temptation, or did he plan to do wrong? Was he unaware of the gravity of his sin? Did he deliberately ignore counsel or warnings? Was it a single offense, or was it a practice? The more an ndividual repeats serious sin, the more that one reasonably gives evidence of being like wicked people who are “practicing what is hurtful.”—Ps. 28:3.
9. The judicial committee should be very concerned about keeping the congregation clean and the need to exercise particular care if the wrongdoer has secretly carried on gross sin over a long period. In such cases, an individual might not be able to demonstrate sufficient repentance to the committee at the time of the hearing. If so, he must be disfellowshipped, allowing time to pass for him to prove his repentance. Or it may be that the individual has been dealt with judicially a number of times in the past. Because he appeared repentant, he was reproved each time. Now he has sinned again. In these cases, the committee must consider whether the person’s life course gives evidence that he is producing “fruit that befits repentance.”—Matt. 3:8.
10. Below are some indications of repentance. However, none of these factors is the only consideration when determining whether the sinner is repentant.

(1) Was his confession voluntary, or did he have to be accused by others? Some offenders are so deeply ashamed or have such difficulty expressing themselves that they are reluctant to speak.

(2) Is the individual truthful? (Acts 5:1-10) When questioned, are his answers forthright? Is he cooperative with the judicial committee? The judicial committee should be especially cautious if the individual has shown himself to be guilty of hypocrisy, lying, or deliberate efforts to deceive.

(3) Has he prayed to Jehovah and asked for his forgiveness? Keep in mind that some wrongdoers, though repentant, find it difficult to pray.—Jas. 5:14.

(4) What has he done to repair his relationship with Jehovah and with others he has hurt by his actions? Has he made amends, expressed willingness to do so, or apologized to those damaged by his sinful course? Has he asked for the forgiveness of those he has wronged?

(5) If he has committed adultery, has he confessed to the innocent mate and asked for forgiveness?—w73 pp.351-352. The option to forgive adultery rests with the innocent mate. The guilty mate cannot be viewed as repentant if he refuses to inform her and allow her the opportunity to forgive. If the wrongdoer is unwilling to confess and ask for forgiveness because of fear of violence by the innocent mate or for some other reason, the elders should contact the Service Department before proceeding.

(6) Does he manifest a spirit of heartfelt regret over having damaged his relationship with Jehovah?—Ps. 32:3-5; 51:1-4.

(7) Does he demonstrate godly sadness or worldly sadness? (2 Cor. 7:8-11) Is his sadness primarily because of hurting Jehovah and bringing Him into reproach or because of the disappointment he has caused to family and friends and the shame he has experienced? (Ezra 10:1; Luke 22:59-62) Individuals vary in their emotional makeup and control. Tears do not necessarily indicate sincere repentance; neither does a lack of strong emotion show a lack of repentance.—Gen. 25:29-34; 27:34.

(8) Does he accept responsibility for his error, or does he rather minimize or justify his bad course?—1 Sam. 15:24; 2 Sam. 12:13.

(9) Does he recognize that lesser sins may have led up to serious wrongdoing, and is he determined to avoid these?(

(11) Each case is different. The judicial committee should consider what they know about the wrongdoer’s background and any factors unique to the case. This will help the judicial committee to understand the wrongdoer better.

The perspective on the handling of serious sins is very different in the books “Shepherd the Flock of God” (2022) and Shepherd the Flock of God (2025). The 2025 instructions require the committee’s elders to put great effort into helping the sinner repent, but this was lacking in the 2022 edition. Because of this, we should expect fewer Witnesses to be removed from the congregation.

However, when a committee is convened, what should members look for to know that the wrongdoer shows true repentance? The 2025 edition does not tell. The rule is that when the Watchtower Society publishes a new interpretation, the old interpretation is null and void. In this case, the new interpretation is that the elders should go to great lengths to help the wrongdoer to repent.

But the 2025 edition does not change the evidence showing repentance. Chapter 16 in the 2022 edition, which outlines what can be accepted as evidence of repentance, was not included in the 2025 edition. The 2025 edition adds no new interpretation of this evidence, and elders have not received instructions not to use this evidence in the 2022 edition. This means the criteria for accepting true repentance outlined in the 2022 edition remain valid.

Appendix A12 in Shepherd the Flock of God (2025) refers to The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, pages 29-31. Here we find points similar to the points in chapter 16 of  “Shepherd the Flock of God” (2022). This shows that that points of chapter 16 in the edition of 2022 are still valid even though they are not included in the 2025 edition.

 

Points 7 and 8 in chapter 16 of the 2022 edition outline the criteria:

• The wrongdoer must have deeds showing that he has repented.
• These deeds ought to be commensurate with the wrongdoer’s degree of deviation.
• A wrongdoer can be disfellowshipped even if it is his first time before a committee.
• The members of the committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has changed his heart, and that he is absolutely determined to avoid wrongdoing in the future.

The committee members focus on helping the wrongdoer to repent. At the same time, the committee members must have their eyes on the criteria that prove that he has repented. Given the nature of the 44 disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body, balancing the two can be difficult, as I will discuss in the next section.

The instructions in “Shepherd the flock of God” (2020) to a great extent work against “the goal of the committee “to lead the individual to repentance,” as expressed in Shepherd the Flock of God (2025) because of the requirements of the 2020 edition that: —   he must give evidence of genuine repentance. —  the degree of regret (repentance) ought to be commensurate with the degree of deviation. —  The committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition. It is not enough that the wrongdoer says that he has repented, has asked Jehovah’s forgiveness, and is determined not to do the wrong action again. He must prove by his actions that he has repented, and that his degree of regret is of the order of magnitude that the members of the committee decide is commensurate with the degree of deviation. And last but not least: If the committee is not convinced that he has fulfilled the requirements proving that he has repented, he will be disfellowshipped. The biblical rule is found in 1 Corinthians 13:7: love… bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. If a wrongdoer says that he has stopped with his wrongdoing, has repented and regret what he has done, the elders in the committee must believe his words. If they believe the wrongdoer’s words, and the wrongdoer later starts with his wrongdoing again, the committee can disfellowship him.

THE NATURE OF THE DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES  WORK AGAINST THE GOAL “TO LEAD THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPENTANCE”

The committee members must first establish the facts regarding the wrongdoing. Then they must work hard to help the wrongdoer to repent, keeping an eye on the evidence he presents for repentance.

Because several disfellowshipping offenses created by the Governing Body are ambiguous, and others relate to the thoughts and inclinations of the supposed wrongdoer, many obstacles stand in the way of helping wrongdoers repent.

BEING DISFELLOWSHIPPED BECAUSE OF GREED

I start with the example of point 5, “Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts,” which is related to “uncleanness with greediness.” I will look at a situation, and I quote “Shepherd the Flock of God” (2025), Appendix A 12, 13:

GROSS UNCLEANNESS, UNCLEANNESS WITH GREEDINESS

12. Uncleanness to a serious degree should be handled by a committee of elders. (2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19, 21; Eph. 4:19) When reviewing matters involving uncleanness, such as those that follow, the elders may find it helpful to review the July 15, 2006, issue of The Watchtower, pages 29-31. The elders should use good judgment in discerning whether the conduct is minor uncleanness that can be handled by counsel or is gross uncleanness that requires the formation of a committee. The coordinator of the body of elders should always be informed if the matter was handled by counsel. When questions arise, consult the Service Department. Gross uncleanness may be involved in (but is not limited to) the following matters.
13. 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.

This shows how a person can be disfellowshipped because elders subjectively view his thoughts and inclinations as wicked. I will now show that the means to establish a person is guilt of gross uncleanness with greediness, militates against new procedures for helping the wrongdoer repent. It is not possible to repent of something that is elusive and cannot be defined.

The attraction between the sexes is strong, and it is natural that a young woman and a young man who are attracted to each other want to caress each other. Because Jehovah wants that children shall grow up under secure circumstances, which is marriage, only married couples have the right to have sexual intercourse, according to his law.

However, the members of the Governing Body have invented a disfellowshipping offense for persons attracted to each other, called “gross uncleanness with greediness.” What this means is seen in The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, which is referred to in Shepherd the Flock of God. I quote from page 30:

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. (My italics.) So the elders might take judicial action because gross uncleanness 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. (My italics.)

Everything in connection with this disfellowshipping offense is heavily flawed.

First: God’s Word does not even hint that elders should consider tangible expressions of feelings between two people.

Second: The NWT Study Bible defines “greed” or “greediness” as “an insatiable desire to have more.” No Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word has this meaning.[1]

Third: The elders, based on their subjective assessment, decide that a person is guilty of “gross uncleanness with greediness.”

Fourth: It is not possible to repent of being greedy because this concept is elusive, and it is the elders say that the person is greedy.

The committee is advised to ask as few questions as possible. But in a committee hearing regarding “gross uncleanness with greediness,” a great number of questions must be asked, to the point that this will be an interrogation with no focus on repentance:

What actually is “passion-arousing heavy petting”? Did they kiss each other? In that case, how did they do the kissing? In a way that aroused sexual feelings? Where did they touch each other? Did they touch their breasts or sexual organs? Was one of them the active part, or were both?

What is “on numerous occasions”? Four or five times, or at least ten times?

What is “a measure of greediness”?  How is “a measure” measured? And most importantly: Greediness is a feeling or an inclination, and because the elders cannot read the thoughts of others, how can they know that a person is greedy, even to a small extent? It is not possible to say that the actions of the person show that he has “a measure of greediness” because all humans are different, with different reactions to similar situations.

The young brother and sister will be interrogated separately. They may remember the situations differently and give different answers. Based on this, the elders may conclude that one or both is lying or that one or both has “a brazen attitude,” which in itself is a disfellowshipping offense.

Chapter 7, point 7, in Shepherd the Flock of God  (2025) says:

At the same time, the committee should remember that the decision to repent rests with the individual, not with the elders.

This is, of course, correct. But what should the brother or sister repent? The two have expressed affection for each other by caressing each other. This is not forbidden in The Christian Greek Scriptures, and they have no had sexual intercourse, which is a violation of God’s law.

If a brother or sister has sexual intercourse, what he or she must repent is this sexual intercourse. But what should the brother or sister repent in connection with “gross uncleanness with greediness”? The two may be in love with each other; they have not violated God’s law, and they do not view what they have done as wrong. What should they repent? It is the elders who have decided that the caressing between the two is “passion-arousing heavy petting,” and that this is greediness. But in this case, the repentance rests with the elders and not with the brother or sister. It is not possible to repent what others have decided.

BEING DISFELLOWSHIPPED BECAUSE OF HAVING VIEWED PORNOGRAPHY

The Watchtower literature has for many years pointed out that viewing pornography is a bad habit that Christians should avoid. In 2006, there was a course for elders that had so many talks about pornography that we called it “the Porn course.” Disfellowshipping for viewing “abhorrent forms of pornography” was now introduced.

The book Shepherd the Flock of God (2025), Appendix point 15, says:

15. Viewing Pornography: Although the deliberate viewing of pornography is a sin, not all cases require handling by a committee of elders. (Matt. 5:28, 29; see 2:6.) If the body of elders determines a committee is not needed but the matter involves a pioneer, a ministerial servant, or an elder, his qualifications should be reviewed. (See 5:20; 14:3.) An entrenched practice of viewing, perhaps over a considerable period of time, abhorrent forms of pornography should be handled by a committee. (Eph. 4:19; w12 3/15 pp. 30-31) Abhorrent forms of pornography include homosexuality (sex between those of the same gender), group sex, bestiality, sadistic torture, bondage, gang rape, the brutalizing of women, or child pornography. If a Christian promotes the viewing of pornography (whether abhorrent or nonabhorrent forms), such as by inviting others to view it, this could give evidence of brazen conduct, which would require handling by a committee.

Some serious sins can harm other persons, such as stealing and manslaughter. Other serious sins, such as misuse of alcohol, can harm the person himself. However, viewing pornography does not cause immediate harm to others or to yourself. (I have not seen any scientific evidence supporting that harms those who view pornography experience, according to the Governing Body.) So, why is it wrong? The sexual drive is the strongest drive we have. As children mature, they become naturally attracted to the other sex, and the same happens in adults. Viewing pornography is an alternative way to satisfy one’s sexual drive.

I do not defend pornography or the viewing of pornography. But pornography is not mentioned in the Bible, and therefore is not a disfellowshipping offense. The words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28, 29 are often used to show that viewing pornography is wrong, including in the quotation above. But this is misleading. I quote the verses:

²⁸ “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery (moikheuō).’ ²⁸ But I say to YOU that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery (moikheuō) with her in his heart. ²⁹ If, now, that right eye of yours is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge·henʹna.

The Greek verb moikheuō means that a married person has sexual intercourse with someone to whom one is not married. The point of Jesus, as he has expressed on several occasions, it that the wrong action begins in the heart. The text shows that a married man should not keep looking at a woman other than his wife. Because this is Jesus’ only point, it cannot even in principle be applied to pornography.

Why is viewing pornography a disfellowshipping offense in the view of the members of the Governing Body? It is because viewing pornography shows that the person has bad thoughts and inclinations. Thus, persons are disfellowshipped, not for their actions but for their thoughts and inclinations.

We can see this in the letter from the branch office in Norway of  June 21, 2006, to all bodies of elders. The letter listed the following abhorrent forms of pornography as “gross uncleanness”:

Child pornography

Sadistic torture

Sadomasochistic sex,

Gang rape

Brutalizing of women.

After this list the letter said:

In addition, to view heterosexual oral or anal sex (in a film or on a computer) is clearly uncleanness. But it should not be viewed as “gross uncleanness” that must be handled judicially. But it can lead to removal from the list of an elder, a ministerial servant, or a pioneer, depending on how often it has occurred and when it last happened. If someone views homosexual oral (or anal) sex or such forms of group sex, it is more serious. But this shall neither be viewed as “gross immorality” that must be handled judicially. However, it is likely that the person will lose his service-privileges in the congregation.

There can only be one reason why viewing the forms of pornography in the list are disfellowshipping offenses while viewing the forms mentioned in the quotation is not, is that the thoughts and inclinations of those who see the forms on the list are so wicked that they cannot be a part of God’s clean people. Thus, persons who are disfellowshipped because of viewing pornography are not disfellowshipped because of their actions but because of their “wicked” thoughts and inclinations.

Sometime after the letter to the elders mentioned above, the members of the Governing Body changed their minds, and the actions mentioned in the quotation are now included among the disfellowshipping offenses.

I made a detailed study of what is included in each of the forms of pornography that are disfellowshipping offenses when they are viewed. I found that what is included in each form of pornography is unclear.[2] This means that the committee must ask a number of questions to the wrongdoer to establish what had happened.

For example, child pornography in the USA and Norway include persons younger than 18 years? But how can the viewer know the age of girls in pornographic pictures? Very young girls can be identified as children. But that is not easy with teenage girls.

Moreover, what is pornography? Are pictures of naked girls pornography? Must the girls do gestures that can be seen as sexual gestures to make the pictures pornographic? Or must there be two individuals in sexual positions to make the pictures pornographic?

Several questions can be asked regarding each disfellowshipping action viewed as a disfellowshipping offense. The concept “group sex” is defined as “any sexual activity involving more than two participants simultaneously.” Consider a person who is seeing a scene of a man and a woman having normal sex. This is not viewed as a disfellowshipping offense. But what if another woman enters the scene and, for a short time, takes part in the couple’s sexual actions? Is this “group sex”?

I am not trying to make the situation more difficult than it is. But I point out all the problems that can arise when the members of the Governing Body invent disfellowshipping offenses that are ambiguous or that are based on the thoughts and inclinations of the Witnesses.

The two disfellowshipping offenses discussed above militate against the more lenient treatment of persons who are considered by a committee for possible disfellowshipping. This is the case with most of the 44 disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body.

What would be the right treatment in the two situations discussed above? In the literature of the Watchtower Society and at the meetings, discussions of the attraction between the sexes and how persons who grow up get a strong sexual drive should be presented. And advice for a good moral should be given. Then it would be up to each individual to live according to biblical principles. Each Witness should answer for himself before Jehovah without needing the Governing Body as a mediator.

If a couple shows affection for each other by kissing and touching each other’s body parts, this is between them and Jehovah God. The elders have no biblical right to intervene and ask questions about their behavior, or even disfellowship them. If a person is viewing pornography, this is between him and Jehovah God. The elders have no biblical right to intervene and ask questions about his behavior, or even disfellowship him.

The elders should exhort the congregation to live Christian lives and give good advice on solving problems that may arise. But they have no biblical right to act as policemen, as they do today

PUTTING NEW WINE IN OLD WINESKINS

In a conversation with the disciples of John the Baptist, Jesus spoke about wine and wineskins. I quote Matthew 9:17:

¹⁷ Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins; but if they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both things are preserved.”

In ancient times, wine was stored in bags of skin. New wine ferments and generates carbon dioxide, which increase pressure on the wineskin and it may burst. New skins expand, but old, inflexible skin bags burst under pressure. Therefore, putting new wine in old wineskins is a waste.

THE NEW WAY OF HELPING WRONGDOERS TO REPENT IS LIKE PUTTING NEW WINE IN OLD WINESKINS BECAUSE THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF DISFELLOWSHIPPING CREATED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY IS FLAWED AND IMPROPER. THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE TAKEN THE PLACE OF GOD BY INVENTING LAWS IN ADDITION TO THE BIBLE AND BY JUDGING AND SENTENCING WITNESSES BY THESE LAWS.

BY CREATING LAWS IN ADDITION TO THE BIBLE AND BY JUDGING AND SENTENCING WITNESSES BY THESE LAWS.

When Geoffrey Jackson revealed that the Governing Body had decided that the use of the four main parts of blood was no longer prohibited, the reason was that we “recognize that in harmony with 1 Corinthians 4 verse 6, we are not authorized to go beyond the things that are written.”

In connection with the treatment of wrongdoing and disfellowshipping, the members of the Governing Body have gone far beyond what has been written, as I have shown above.

• The Christian Greek Scriptures list only 11 disfellowshipping offenses, but the members of the Governing Body have invented 44 other disfellowshipping offenses.
• Christians should not be disfellowshipped for what they do but for what they are. Only persons who are permeated by one of the 11 disfellowshipping offenses and refuse to stop should be disfellowshipped.
• The Governing Body’s instruction is that if a person is guilty of one of the 55 disfellowshipping offenses, and the members of the committee are not convinced that he sincerely repents of his action, they should remove him from the congregation.
• Apart from the 11 disfellowshipping offenses, no passage in the Scriptures authorizes the elders to inquire whether a member of the congregation has violated God’s law.
• Any violation of the 44 disfellowshipping offenses invented by the members of the Governing Body, or any other law, is a matter between the Christian and God. The elders have no Scriptural right to intervene and ask questions about the violation.

ON THE BASIS OF THESE POINTS WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEW PROCEDURES OF HELPING SINNERS TO REPENT ARE THE SAME AS PUTTING NEW WINE IN OLD WINESKINS. THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF DISFELLOWSHIPPING THAT IN ALL RESPECTS IS FLAWED AND IMPROPER WITH NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS, CANNOT BE REFORMED. IT MUST BE SCRAPPED.

The next article will discuss the Scriptural alternative to the present flawed system of disfellowshipping.

 

[1]. See the article, «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/)

[2]. See the article, “Viewing abhorrent forms of pornography.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2020/09/29/viewing-abhorrent-forms-of-pornography/),

“Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte. ”

OVERSKRIFT 3

Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.

CONCLUSION

Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.