Disfellowshipping: Shunning, Watchtower Style

Watchtower 2015 Apr 15 p. 29

On their official website, the Watchtower explains their shunning policy as follows:

Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.

We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “”Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.””
Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion? (FAQ on jw.org)

Okay, we’ve fairly let them have their say and make their claim. They just claimed that they don’t shun someone unless they make a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and are thus “wicked.” Now let’s see if they have told the truth or have just lied through their false teeth.

Well, the reason for disfellowshipping is that some persons get into this congregation of God that do not love Christ… Such an individual has no place in the clean organization or congregation of God. He should go back to the wicked group that he once came from and die with that wicked group with Satan’s organization.
— Watchtower 1952 Mar 1 pp. 131, 134

Who would determine whether someone sufficiently “loved Christ”? How would they determine this? And how does this possibly qualify as “making a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code”?

Nevertheless, if future cases of gross unnatural conduct, such as the practice of oral or anal copulation, are brought to their attention, the elders should act to try to correct the situation before further harm results, as they would do with any other serious wrong. Their concern is, of course, to try to help those who go astray and are ‘caught in the snare of the Devil.’ (2 Tim. 2:26) But if persons willfully show disrespect for Jehovah God’s marital arrangements, then it becomes necessary to remove them from the congregation as dangerous “leaven” that could contaminate others.
Watchtower 12/1/1972 p.735

So, we find out that certain sexual practices done in private between a husband and wife are “the snare of the devil” and justify shunning of the “wicked” couple. I imagine the only way that others in the congregation would know about a couple’s foray into oral sex would be by the large smiles on the couple’s faces (the dangerous “leaven” that would soon have every couple wanting to try it!)

Funny how “the Bible’s moral code” never once condemns (or even mentions) such practices — as the Watchtower has admitted in print:

It must be acknowledged that the Bible does not give any specific rules or limitations as regards the manner in which husband and wife engage in sexual relations.
Watchtower 2/15/1978 p.30

Oh? So, can we stop shunning such couples now? NO; though they weren’t guilty of breaking the Bible’s moral code, they were guilty of something just as bad: breaking the Watchtower’s own made-up commandment (which, of course, was “truth for its time.”) [Did I hear someone shout out “Pharisees!”?]

What if I’m a Jehovah’s Witness in good standing, whose daughter and son-in-law have been disfellowshipped for having engaged in oral sex? Do I have to continue to shun my own daughter, even though she has broken no biblical moral code, and loves Christ?

If after sufficient warning the publisher persists in associating with the disfellowshipped person instead of aligning himself with Jehovah’s organization he also should be disfellowshipped.
Watchtower 1955 Oct 1 p.607

There you have it: associating with someone who has been disfellowshipped can get you disfellowshipped as well, though it’s hardly what a rational person would call “breaking the Bible’s moral code.” In my Bible it says that Jesus associated with the “sinners” because he felt they needed him (also, they tend to be a lot more fun to hang with.)

Let’s look at the well-known circumstances of one very public disfellowshipping. Ray Franz was a member of the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He lived a moral life, and studied the Bible daily. He never broke “the Bible’s moral code.” No one in their right mind would have considered him “wicked.” When he learned that some of the teachings he had been promulgating as a member of the Governing Body were untrue, he had a “crisis of conscience” which led him to resign his position. At one point he shared a meal with someone who had been disfellowshipped. For this Ray himself was disfellowshipped, and consequently shunned by all Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Was Ray “making a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code?” Was he a “wicked man”? Answer that question honestly and you’ll see that the official site of Jehovah’s Witnesses currently has a big fat stinking lie smelling up the place.

Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses are disfellowshipped (i.e. shunned) for thinking or forming their own opinions or living their lives at variance with the “current understanding” of the Watchtower. Sometimes Witnesses “get ahead” of the “light” — rejecting a current teaching for one that the Governing Body later adopts. They are disfellowshipped for this, and that sentence is not commuted even after it turns out that they were right!

For instance, oral and anal sex between married couples was later declared not to be against the Bible’s moral code, and hence no longer a disfellowshipping offense:

In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.
A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis.
Watchtower, 2/15/1978 p. 30-31

Any Witness who was disfellowshipped for this was not automatically reinstated when the Governing Body realized that the individual was not breaking God’s law. No; the individual had to come crawling back on their knees begging to be reinstated. But why would anyone do that? Wouldn’t it have become painfully obvious, as a result of that experience, that the Governing Body does not know what God’s laws are?

This example makes it clear that Witnesses are in reality shunned, not for breaking their god’s law, but for breaking the Watchtower’s rules.

Witnesses are not to speak or write to a disfellowshipped Witness. If the disfellowshipped one is an “apostate” (holding views at variance with the Governing Body, as was the case with Ray Franz) then not only are they to never acknowledge that person’s existence, they are ordered to “hate, loathe and despise” the individual!

The obligation to hate lawlessness also applies to all activity by apostates. Our attitude toward apostates should be that of David, who declared: ‘Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies.’
-– The Watchtower, July 15, 1992, pages 12, 13

We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest.”
-– Watchtower, October 1, 1952, p. 599

This is especially ironic since the Watchtower claims that the basis of disfellowshipping is love! (Watchtower 1952 Mar 1 p. 131) It’s even more ironic when a son or daughter is involved in “apostasy” (i.e. thinking for themselves); parents who’ve been instructed to give “unconditional love” must now “hate, loathe, and detest” them!

If a son or daughter is disfellowshipped, then the parents must limit their association with their children to just what is absolutely necessary. Recent articles have warned Witnesses against trying to stretch the definition of “necessary contact.” You can find hundreds of stories on the Internet of people whose lives have been ruined due to this heartless policy of the Watchtower’s.

This is in spite of the fact that the secret handbook that only elders are allowed to see, Shepherding the Flock of God, now states that a Witness who has “undue association” with a disfellowshipped relative should be “counseled” and “lose privileges” but should not be hauled before a judicial committee to be disfellowshipped [as long as it’s not a “spritual” association and the disfellowshipping decision isn’t criticized.]

But most Witnesses are unaware of what’s in that secret book. All they hear at the conventions is: “Show love to your disfellowshipped family members by cutting off all contact with them!”

Shunning between family members is one of the most glaringly apparent signs of a cult. What else but a mind-controlling cult could ever come between the sacred bond between parents and their children?

When you are in a cult that explicitly separates you from associating with outsiders, suicide in a not uncommon response to being shunned by the cult. This probably accounts for a large part of the high suicide rate among Jehovah’s Witnesses and former members.

The Watchtower claims that if a Witness acts up, it would “bring reproach on Jehovah’s name” if they didn’t disfellowship that person. (What they’re really worried about is what the neighbors will say about them.) But that argument just insults our intelligence. I’ve known Catholics who get drunk, and Methodists who cheat on their taxes. But I’m smart enough not to take the actions of these individuals and hold them against the Catholic or Methodist church. You’re always going to have a few bad apples, but it would be a stupid farmer who would condemn the tree because of it.

Shame on the Governing Body and its Watchtower for its shunning policy. Shame on the parents who meekly go along with the command to shun their own children. It’s time to Awake! and smell the sh*t the Watchtower is shoveling.

Then go hug your kids.

P.S. Shunning also extends to written communication. If you’re a Witness you are now in big trouble for even having read this article written by an apostate. But, your secret is safe with me; the elders will never know. Just don’t even think of leaving a comment; the Watchtower has specifically commanded that you shall not leave comments on apostate sites (as that would be communicating with an apostate.) But go ahead: give it a shot! Live a little. We won’t tell.

Us vs. Them

With the exception of sunglasses, polarization is a bad thing. It divides us, often leading to hatred, violence, even war.
It all starts when we stop seeing people as fellow human beings and start seeing them as labels. The labels can be ones they’ve chosen to wear, or ones we have assigned to them. When we deal with labels, rather than humans, we focus on our differences and ignore the many more things that make us the same.

In the U.S. one of the major pairs of labels is: Republican or Democrat. When someone starts a conversation by asking you if you are a Republican or a Democrat it’s a safe bet that they have firmly labeled themselves as one or the other, and are ready to verbally assail anyone wearing the opposite label.

In the field of religion, the labels are many, and are often more adamantly held than political labels. In our little corner of the world the labels we deal with are “active loyal Jehovah’s Witness” and “apostate” (or, seemingly even more at odds: “apostate atheist.”)

Now, don’t get me wrong; labels aren’t all bad. They are convenient: saving time in establishing where we are “coming from.” But, at the same time they can be counter-productive to reaching an understanding. They often carry negative connotations which may be false or misleading, and are almost always obstacles to seeing the real person underneath.

The Watchtower holds a diametrically opposed viewpoint on this subject. They delight in dividing the world into “us vs. them”: those “in the truth” (i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses) as opposed to those “in the world.” But in the end we are all just people trying to do what’s right to the best of our understanding.

I have neighbors and business associates who are Witnesses, and we get along just fine, because we leave our labels at home and relate to each other as people. But, if they knew I was an “apostate” then their Watchtower training might kick in and they would view me no longer as part of “us” but as part of “them“: the enemy, and that would be the end of that.

I want to talk to the person underneath the Jehovah’s Witness label, and I want to talk to them as a fellow human rather than as an “apostate.”

As one human to another I want to say that while I respect their right to believe what they will, I do not respect the substance of those beliefs that are unloving. In particular I would warn them that trusting an organization to tell them what is right, wrong, and truthful is extremely dangerous, and in fact immoral.

Immoral“? Did you read that right? Yes, you did. It is immoral to pass off your responsibilities to another. You are responsible for your beliefs and actions. Surrendering that responsibility to another person or organization is shirking your duties as a human being on this planet, no matter what label you have loyally pasted on your forehead.

Finally, I need to convey to them that there can never be a valid excuse for any of the following actions (all of which are unloving and stem from the trust they place in the organization):

  1. Withholding life-saving medical care from your children.
  2. Shunning family members or friends.
  3. Allowing child abuse to go unreported.

When the Watchtower tells you that you must obey the organization even when their instructions run counter to your own sense of what is right, then the organization is acting in an immoral manner, and so are you if you follow their command and surrender your responsibilities to them along with your reason.

Now, some people love to be told what to do and what to think. They want to be absolved of all responsibility. One candid Witness wrote to me and said that if the organization should prove wrong, he would not be to blame for having faithfully followed “God’s organization.” (or at least what he was led to believe was “God’s organization.”) Clinging to that thought, he was prepared to listen to any and all criticisms of the organization with impunity without it ever crossing his mind that he should cease to place his trust in an organization that was clearly lying to him.

Don’t let that happen to you.

Undeserved Kindness (Grace)

A lot of mainstream Christians seem to get their undies in a bunch over the fact that the Watchtower, in their New World Translation of the Bible, uses the phrase “undeserved kindness” in place of “grace.”

Now, if you ask those same Christians to please straighten-out their undergarments and rationally discuss their beef, they’ll go on to say something like: “Grace means far more than undeserved kindness.” If you pursue the matter further, asking what “grace” really means, they’ll say something like: “It is God’s love for us: giving us a gift when we’ve done nothing to deserve it.” Uh, okay: so in other words, what they’re saying is that “grace” means “undeserved gift/love/ or kindness.” I honestly can’t see why they’re upset.

Maybe it’s the fact that the NWT brings out the meaning of “grace” for us to see in all of its plain ugliness. Mainstream Christians prefer to hide behind the elegant word “grace” so they can pretend it means something more than it really does: that there’s some esoteric profundity inherent in “grace” that they are at a loss to define.

But here’s the thing: “undeserved kindness” (or “grace,” if you prefer) is a really odd thing when you think about it. This is because “kindness” has nothing at all to do with deserving. When I am kind (which I hope is my normal mode of behavior) I don’t stop to think: “Now wait a minute; does this person I’m about to be kind to deserve my kindness?” To me that’s such a foreign thought that the question is laughable.

It would be like asking myself, before filling my cat’s water-bowl: “Does Sashy [the name of one of the cats who lives with me] deserve this water?” Huh?! Deserving has nothing to do with it. Whether Sashy has been purring like a princess on my lap for the past half-hour or has just finished puking up a juicy hairball on the same, I’m going to give her fresh water.

Acts of kindness are not conditional on how “deserving” the recipient is. Otherwise, it is not an act of kindness but rather a payback of some sort.

As most Christians (including the Witnesses) interpret the Bible, their god shows “undeserved kindness” when he “saves” us from his own wrath (be that hell-fire or simple non-existence.) But I contend that it’s not really “kindness” to refrain from torturing or killing someone; it is merely refraining from being a psychopath or a moral monster.

The whole concept of “grace” / “undeserved kindness” shows just how messed up Christian ethics really are. Their god is considered “kind” because he sacrificed his son in order to forgive us for something we didn’t do (but rather for something he unjustly blames us for that our supposed ancestors did before they knew right from wrong!) This “kindness” is considered “undeserved” because we supposedly deserve bad treatment at this god’s hands for having been born.

In effect, Christianity wants us to assume that we’re worthless sinners, and when we learn of their god’s “undeserved kindness” in not punishing us for existing, Christians evidently expect us to drop to our knees in gratitude! But I tend to assume a different posture, commonly referred to as ROFLMAO. And that’s the kindest thing I can say on this subject, which is more than it deserves.

The Antichrist Exposed!


For nearly 2,000 years folks have been wondering who the “antichrist” is that is mentioned in the Bible. It has been a great mystery, but with the help of the Watchtower I think we can solve this mystery right here and now!

…the antichrist is not an individual, but a collective term. People or organizations making up the antichrist spread lies, deny that Jesus is the Christ… Those who make up the antichrist claim to be Christ or his representatives…
Watchtower 2015 June 1 p.14 (public edition): Antichrist Exposed

So the Watchtower has kindly identified the antichrist for us as an organization that:

  1. Spreads lies.
  2. Denies that Jesus is the Christ.
  3. Claims to be Christ or his representatives.

Hmmm, does that sound like any organization we might be familiar with?

We’ve already proven that the Watchtower organization lies. And the Governing Body frequently and unabashedly claim to be Christ’s representatives on earth. They have usurped Jesus’ role as Mediator for the Great Crowd of unanointed Jehovah’s Witnesses:

So in this strict Biblical sense Jesus is the “mediator” only for anointed Christians.”
Watchtower 1979 Apr 1 p.31 (emphasis added)

To keep in relationship with “our Savior, God,” the “great crowd” needs to remain united with the remnant of spiritual Israelites.
Watchtower 1979 Nov 15 p.27

But do they really deny that Jesus is Christ, or claim that they are?

Surprisingly, the answer to this question is Yes!

The Watchtower’s “mystery doctrine” is little known to any outside of their “anointed” members. It goes like this:

The “mystery” centers on ‘who is the Christ?’ According to the Watchtower, the Christ isn’t Jesus; he is only a part of the Christ (0.0007% to be exact.) The bulk of the Christ is made up of the 144,000 “anointed”  Jehovah’s Witnesses! [anointed is “christ” in Greek.]

The Christ is not considered complete until every last one of those 144,000 gets anointed and receives their heavenly reward! An event the Watchtower calls “the finished mystery.”

This Christ is composed of many members (1 Cor. 12:12) The Greek word Christ corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah. In either language the significance of the word is, The Anointed.

This Gospel age is the time in which the Messiah is prepared. The Head of the Messiah, therefore, very properly, is first; and following him the Apostles and all down through the age the various members of the body. This age will end when the full number of the ‘elect’ shall have been found and tested. Then the body will have been completed. When The Messiah is complete, The Christ will be complete.
Watchtower 1911 June 15 p. 189 (p. 4841 in Reprints)

The mystery is THE CHRIST, the great one through whom redemption, deliverance and blessing will ultimately come to all mankind who receive Christ and obey him…
The Christ is composed of Jesus, the great and mighty head, and the 144,000 members.
–The Harp of God (WBTS 1928) pp. 186, 191

If Christ came with a label of ingredients, Jesus would just be a footnote that read: “Contains 7 ppm [parts per million] of Jesus.” That’s less than the amount of carbon monoxide in the air that’s considered safe to breathe! Or, to take the Watchtower’s analogy of a man’s body: if Christ were a 140 pound man, Jesus would be 0.015 ounces: about as much as a toenail clipping.

I input this into an Excel spreadsheet, and here’s what it looks like in a bar chart:

Christ (Watchtower style)

And in a pie chart:

(Sorry, Jesus; in the Watchtower’s view of the Christ you’re too insignificant to make an appearance.)

I think that should finish the mystery for all concerned.