So anyway, what happened was, the appeal committee upheld the DFing. My letter didn't work. :) Likely, of course, because I told the committees (both present) that I didn't care if I was DF'd or not. When one elder told me that "it would be a real hardship on my family to have to shun me" I laughed at him, telling him I knew they wouldn't follow the rules. When I discussed the jw-media.org website, I was told that "some alleged website is not our authority." When I discussed the WT articles and the Flock book conditions, I was told that the elders "MAY" hold the matter in abeyance, not that they had to. I did write the Service Dept. at Brooklyn Bethel twice asking for confirmation and their opinion on the matter.
Watchtower
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483
Attn: Service Dept.
To Whom It May Concern:
Greetings. The purpose of my writing is to hopefully get an informational response to a situation that has developed regarding my status as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I was baptized at the age of seventeen on December 3rd, 1989. Some time in June of 1997 I quietly stopped attending meetings and any official functions of Jehovah's Witnesses. I did receive the requisite shepherding calls, but decided not to restore my status as an active minister and participant in the Jehovah's Witness religion at that time. Shortly thereafter, my wife received counsel and suggestions from several congregation members, including elders, that her association with me might be limited to merely spending the night in our home, and to avoid any unnecessary contact with me. I never attempted to persuade my wife from relieving herself from attending meetings and so forth. In fact, I tried to keep as quiet as I could regarding the reasons for my inactive status, and never communicated such to any active Witnesses in the local community. In October of 1997 my wife decided to move out of our home. We later reconciled and have been living together again since March of 1998.
I continued in my decision to not attend any official Jehovah's Witness functions, meetings, conventions, Memorial services, informal gatherings, or any such assemblies at all, and I stuck to my policy of being careful not to talk about my inactivity or any spiritual issues with any active Witnesses in my local community.
Some time around the summer of 1999, I reacquainted myself with a friend who had been disfellowshipped from another congregation besides the one I had been attending. We became good friends again. A few weeks before the Memorial, two elders from my former congregation paid me a visit under the pretense of inviting me to the service. Eventually they explained that the real reason for their visit was to inform me that a judicial committee was being formed, based on my association with a disfellowshipped person.
To make a long story short, I did attend the scheduled hearing. I did not deny that I had association with a disfellowshipped person, but I also felt that due to my almost three years of inactivity, that it was entirely unnecessary for me to be disfellowshipped. The elders disagreed and disfellowshipped me. I appealed their decision, but because I was not repentant, and did not make a resolve to cease my association with this person and regain my status as an active Jehovah's Witness, the appeal committee upheld the original committee's decision.
I did bring to the elders' attention a guideline printed in the Watchtower, which reads as follows:
"If Mary had reported first to the body of elders, they would have been faced with a similar decision. How would they handle confidential information coming into their possession? They would have had to make a decision based on what they felt Jehovah and his Word required of them as shepherds of the flock. If the report involved a baptized Christian who was actively associated with the congregation, they would have had to weigh the evidence as did Mary in determining if they should proceed further. If they decided that there was a strong possibility that a condition of "leaven" existed in the congregation, they might have chosen to assign a judicial committee to look into the matter. (Galatians 5:9, 10) If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness." (Watchtower, 9/1/87, pg. 14)
I was informed that my time spent as an inactive Witness (nearly three years) was not long enough for me to have "in effect, resigned from being a member."
I also brought to the elders' attention what is found at the official Public Relations website for Jehovah's Witnesses:
"Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned." (URL: http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm)
I explained that that is what I had done, and that my association with a disfellowshipped person is certainly not out of the ordinary for someone who simply had ceased to be involved in the faith. I was told that "some alleged website is not (the elders') authority."
My disfellowshipping has caused considerable stress for my wife, as much of her family and all of her friends are practicing Jehovah's Witnesses who, for the past three years, generally felt comfortable in my presence, but now for obvious reasons do not. It seems to me that the written and stated policies provided from the Watchtower certainly could have prevented me from being disfellowshipped. If I have any recourse from writing this letter, I certainly would appreciate your informing me of it.
The congregation which disfellowshipped me was the South Cheektowaga Congregation located near Buffalo, NY. The chairman of the committee was Daniel Rubach. The appeal committee was formed from elders from the Lackawanna Congregation, and it was chaired by Raymond Geist.
Thank you very much for your attention to these matters, and I look forward to any response you might grant me.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
Here is their response:
SDY:SST July 18, 2000
Dear XXXXXXX:
We are acknowledging receipt of the correspondence in which you express your belief that a serious error in judgment was made by the judicial committee in disfellowshipping you and by the appeal committee in upholding that decision. After a careful review of all that pertains to this matter, we find no reason to question the decisions of the committees that dealt with your case.
You are encouraged to work toward reinstatement by producing the fruitage of repentance. (Matthew 3:8; Acts 26:20) Your diligence in this regard can strengthen you to qualify for reinstatement. Fine information in this regard appears in the Insight volumes under the headings "Repentance" and "Heart."
We urge you to have a good program of personal study of the Bible with the aid of the Society's publications and attend the meetings at the local Kingdom Hall.
Sincerely,
WTBTS
CC: Judicial Committee
Appeal Committee
I wrote back once more, but the same response was issued. It's now been about a year and a half since I was DF'd. Nothing has changed, except that I never see my DF'd friend any more after he got married. Funny, just this week I did see him, driving on the Interstate. He must have noticed me in my work vehicle, pulled up to me, honked his horn and waved. But that was the first and only contact I've had with him since last year. I guess since my wife is a JW, and I should 'know better,' I won't be getting the yearly visit. Oh well.