was allowed to attend.
participated in both. Since the Christians at that time did not have a public meeting
place that they could call their own, they used both the Synagogues and also met in
private homes, usually over a special meal with prayer.
Christians were instructed to "greet" one another with a kiss. (Rom.16:16; 1.Cor.16:20;
2Cor.13:12; Ti.3:15; 1Pet.5:14) When Paul sent his "greetings" in a letter to the
Christians in Thessalonica, he asked that the brothers be greeted with a "holy kiss" on
his behalf. (1Thess.5:26) This was a custom both amongst the Jews and Christians of
the first century, it had a special significance of close companionship amongst those
who were related either by blood or by their faith.
Clearly, Paul did instruct Christians to expel from the congregation fellowship those
who was purposely practicing willful sin. The expulsion would naturally exclude them
from being greeted by the identifying "holy kiss," as well as not being allowed to share
in meetings and the meals for Christian worship and prayer.
members. Nor were the guilty party barred from attending worship in the temple or the
synagogues. Jesus, the apostles and Paul, along with the rest of the Jews, worshiped
God both publicly in the temple and synagogues, and privately with small groups in
various homes. (Acts 5:42)
teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says
Christian congregation. If you read verse 10 it is clear that it is talking about someone
This included Jews that rejected Jesus and people of the nations worshipping other
Gods. Yet the Watchtower stance is to apply this only to Jehovah's Witnesses. The
meaning of the phrase “never receive him into YOUR homes” should be understood in
the context of the hospitality of first century Jerusalem. Since Christians held
congregation meetings in their homes John possibly felt that inviting a denier of Christ
into a home could be viewed as sharing worship with non-Christians. Likewise the term
to never “say a greeting” to him needs to be understood in light of first century practice.
a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37;
aspa’zo mai
which means a more affectionate embrace, enfolding in the arms, kiss,
greeting or welcome. Of course, the average Witness is going to take this at face
value, which is unfortunate because
Strong’s Concordance defines the two words as
just the
opposite of what this Watchtower is claiming:
5463
chairo {khah'-ee-ro} 1) to rejoice, be glad 2) to rejoice exceedingly 3) to be
well, thrive 4) in salutations, hail! 5) at the beginning of letters: to give one
greeting, salute
A
783 aspasmos {as-pas-mos’} 1) a salutation, either oral or written
By applying the word
khai’ro to the quote at 2 John 11, it is clear that the early Christian
congregation did not completely ignore such ones. While they would not have ‘greeted
them with a holy kiss’ or display an overly zealous greeting, it is obvious that they
would have greeted the person in a courteous manner.
If the scripture at 2 John 10 were observed literally by Jehovah's Witnesses, they
would be obliged to never to speak to
anyone other than another Witness in good
standing. Yet Witnesses work with people with various backgrounds including Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists.....none of whom believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
Why are they allowed to speak with these people, yet are obliged to shun life long
friends and even family members when they get disfellowshipped?
How did Jesus say one expelled from congregation should be treated? Far from cutting
the person off completely, Jesus encouraged kindness:
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and
him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not
listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or
three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them,
speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let
him be to you just as a man of the nations ['Gentile' in some translations] and as
a tax collector.”
58
The instruction was to bring up the matter of sin first between the two individuals
alone.
If the sinner repented, there was no need to carry the matter further. If the sinner was
not repentant, then one or two others should be sought for witnesses. If the sinner
remained unrepentant, only then, as a last resort, should it be brought before the entire
congregation (not privately with the "elders").
If, after all that, the person was still would not listen, he should then be treated the
same as Gentiles and tax collectors. In other words, Christians were to treat former
40
59
Matthew 9:9-13 New World Translation
60
See Dateline story: www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/dateline.htm
members
just like anyone else who was not a member of the congregation. To be
treated like a "man of the nations" (which is to say, a Gentile or foreigner) was far from
being shunned. Jewish people worked with, associated with, transacted business with,
and preached to Gentiles. As for "tax collectors," Jesus ate and associated with them.
Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were not popular, but they were not
shunned.
“Next, while passing along from there, Jesus caught sight of a man named
Matthew seated at the tax office, and he said to him: "Be my follower."
Thereupon he did rise up and follow him. Later, while he was reclining at the
table in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began
reclining with Jesus and his disciples. But on seeing this the Pharisees began to
say to his disciples: "Why is it that your teacher eats with tax collectors and
sinners?" Hearing [them], he said: "Persons in health do not need a physician,
but the ailing do. Go, then, and learn what this means, 'I want mercy, and not
sacrifice.' For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners."
59
The ironic thing about the Organizations’ view of disfellowshipping, is that they do not
‘practice what they preach’. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not disfellowship
greedy persons. They often do not disfellowship people who regularly get drunk unless
their conduct becomes so outrageous and publicly-known as to bring reproach upon
Jehovah's Witnesses.
They do not disfellowship people for many of the things which they themselves class as
"idolatry" (for example: materialism, worshipping an organization, etc.).
On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses do disfellowship and shun people for:
·
Celebrating a birthday, Christmas, Easter, or other secular holidays (even though the
founder of the religion, Charles Russell saw no problem with celebrating such days);
·
Discussing personal views of the scriptures with anyone if your viewpoint differs from with
the Governing Body says is ‘truth’
·
Independent study and discussion of the Bible that brings Watchtower doctrine into
question
(even though the scriptures specifically tell Christians to “make sure of all things”.
·
possession of literature written by former members.
·
having a meal with a former member, even if the former member professes to be a
Christian and was not disfellowshipped for fornication, greed, idolatry, reviling,
drunkenness, or extortion.
·
Going public with revelations that the Organization has covered up acts of pedophilia over
the years
60
·
attending a service of any other church or religious organization.
·
authorizing a blood transfusion, even to save the life of a child.
There are numerous other actions not mentioned in scripture, but deemed by the
congregation elders to be "unclean conduct," or "conduct unbecoming" of a Jehovah's
Witness. "Conduct" in this case covers a broad range of actions not clearly defined by
the Society, leaving discernment about what is not acceptable to the discretion of the
41
61
2 Thes.3:13-15 NWT
congregation's elders. As a result, standards by which people may be disfellowshipped
are inconsistent throughout this religion which claims "unity" to be one of their
identifying characteristics.
There is no scripture basis for mandating that Christians must totally shun former
members (that is, have no communication or conversation with them). The instruction is
to expel them from the congregation and treat them like anyone else who is not a
member. More specifically, there is no scripture to support shunning of one's own
relatives--parents, children and siblings.
The Society inevitably will use the scripture at Matthew 10:37 to support their view of
shunning relatives where it says:
“....He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of
me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not
worthy of me....”
Yet again, this is referring to Jesus
himself-----not an Organization made up of
imperfect men and who, we have seen, have been responsible for false prophecies, flip
flopping on numerous doctrines over the years, who have completely misunderstood
the whole concept of blood transfusions which has cost many Witnesses their lives,
and who have admitted in a court of law that they have promoted false prophecies and
feel that anyone whose conscience truly cannot accept some of their rather bizarre
doctrines, should be “cut off” and are viewed as being “worthy of death”. It should also
be noted that nowhere in the scriptures does it indicate that either Jesus or his
disciples were ‘disfellowshipped’ by the Pharisees from Jewish fellowship, for
promoting ideas that differed from what the Pharisees taught. They were hated by
many for sure, but they were never shunned.
In addition, Paul counseled against abandoning those separated from the
congregation:
“For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. But if anyone is not
obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating
with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as
an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.”
61
In the elder’s manual
Pay Attention To Yourselves and to All the Flock on page 103, it
says:
"Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a
disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to
excuse the wrongful course."
Despite this statement, Jehovah's Witnesses the world over are taught that to please
Jehovah God they must shun their siblings, their children, and even their parents or
grandparents who either choose to leave or are disfellowshipped--especially if the
42
62
The entire story can be found on page 348 of In Search of Christian Freedom
63
In Search of Christian Freedom, p. 353
64
Printed in a letter to the editorial column of the Concord Monitor of December 8, 1984. No one from
the Society could, or did refute them.
crime is variance with Watchtower doctrine for which they are branded "apostates."
And it is a fact that many Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for refusing to shun
their disfellowshipped relatives.
This is painfully obvious by the experience of Annette Stuart, a then 77 year old
grandmother who lived in West Brookfield, Massachusetts and who had been a faithful
Witness for 30 years.
62 Some time in the late 1970s, her then 17 year old
granddaughter (who had been baptized as a ‘minor’ 3 years earlier) decided that the
pressures put upon her as a Witness was too much and stopped going to the meetings.
Instead of just letting her walk away, the elders concluded that since she had
‘disfellowshipped herself’, they would simply make it official and disfellowship her
formally. However, at that time you were still allowed to talk to disfellowshipped
persons and, although strained, their family continued on.
However, in 1981 with the Society’s reversing (yet again) how you were to treat
disfellowshipped family members, this family was torn apart. This young girl was
kicked out of the family home with nowhere to go so her grandmother took her in. As
her husband had never been a Witness, the elders could not do anything to him but
ordered Annette to ‘walk out of the room’ whenever her granddaughter entered and she
was not to ‘eat a meal’ with her. When she protested with many tears that she could
not comply with such a heartless request (as it was neither scriptural or Christlike), she
was disfellowshipped as well. This cruel act completely split the family apart and for
what reason? Because a 17 year old girl felt (with good reason) that the Organization
was far too demanding and because a grandmother did what the scriptures said she
should do: she “provided for her own” and paid the price.
Another example of how inhumane and mean-spirited this obsession with “keeping the
Organization clean” extends, is what happened to another elderly Witness, George
West from the Maynard Massachusetts congregation in 1982.
63 George was dying of
bone cancer and was deteriorating quickly:
“his head was supported in a cage arrangement since his neck bones could no
longer bear the weight. The elders [had somehow heard] that George had
submitted to a blood transfusion and attempted to ask him about it on several
occasions. One night under interrogation he acknowledged having accepted
the transfusion. His reason? His children from a previous marriage had heard
he was dying and called to let him know they were coming.....to visit him at the
hospital. He had not seen them since childhood. He decided to take the
transfusion to extend his life a little longer in order to be reunited with his
children. The elders disfellowshipped George West only days before he died.”
64
As a Christian, can anyone imagine Jesus acting in such a heartless fashion? Didn’t
Jesus stress over and over again that Jehovah “wants mercy, not sacrifice”? How is
43
65
See section on “Blood”
66
Crisis of Conscience p. 363 . Also see the attached letters at the end of this section
67
1 Tim.5:8 (NIV)
taking such a legalistic approach with an elderly brother who is near death beneficial to
anyone? Especially in light of the fact that there is no scriptural basis to support the
Organization’s view on blood transfusions.
65 One can only imagine how this poor
brother felt knowing he was dying in a “disfellowshipped state”, which, according to the
Organization, almost certainly means he is not worthy of a resurrection.
There have been countless other cases like these two mentioned above. The most
famous “disfellowshipping” is probably that of Raymond Franz, who was a member of
the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 9 years. Despite all the certainty of the
‘rank and file Witness’ that Ray was disfellowshipped for “apostasy”, he in fact, was
not. He had resigned his position as a member of the Governing Body after realizing
that the Organization was not being run in a loving or Christ-like manner, but had
become far more legalistic, controlling and heartless and had caused irreparable harm
to tens of thousands of Witnesses over the years. He was actually disfellowshipped
for eating a meal with his employer, Peter Gregerson, who had disassociated himself at
the time.
66 If anyone doubts that this is in fact the reason why he was
disfellowshipped, a scanned copy of the letter he received from Brooklyn Bethel at the
time can be found at the end of this chapter.
One can only wonder what Jehovah and Jesus think of such mindless legalistic tactics,
especially as Jesus had condemned the Pharisees for offenses of a similar nature.
And unfortunately, this is not just something that happens in isolated cases without the
knowledge of the Governing Body members, as
all disfellowshippings are reported to
Brooklyn Bethel and they are only too aware of what is going on.
There is absolutely no historical or scriptural evidence that first century Christians
practiced “disfellowshipping” as it is practiced by the Watchtower Society today and
enforced on millions of Witnesses worldwide. In fact, the scriptures specifically says
that it is a Christian’s duty to provide “for his relatives”. They way we know that this is
speaking of those outside his immediate family is because that is exactly what the
scripture in 1 Timothy 5:8 says
:
“...If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate
family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
67
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company
with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an
idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a
man.
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 the wicked [man]
from among yourselves.”
1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 is very specific as to who these words apply to. This
advice is to be applied to someone
"called a brother" who is a wrongdoer. There is
no evidence that it is telling you to avoid this person when they are no longer
44
68
2 Corinthians 2:5-6
69
Insight on the Scriptures , Vol-1 p. 627 Diotrephes , 3 John 9,10
70
Studies Series VI - The New Creation pp.289, 290
recognized as a Jehovah's Witness. As we have already discussed, once a person
was ‘removed’ from the congregation, they were to be treated “as a man of the
nations” or as “a tax-collector”.
It is not unusual for the youth amongst the Witnesses to get into trouble and
possibly disfellowshipped for smoking or fornication. Years later they may no longer
practice what they were originally disfellowshipped for and they are not known in the
community as a Witness, yet the extreme form of shunning continues, apparently
until they die, which is completely unjustified, especially where family members are
concerned. It should also be noted that Paul did not insist that every single
Christian participate in the shunning. Later he wrote that the "majority" participate in
the rebuke, showing that some in the congregation may choose not to show rebuke
to the person (obviously without fear of being called before a Judicial Committee
and disfellowshipped themselves).
"Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU
to an extent-not to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke
given by the
majority
is sufficient for such a man…" 68
Ironically, the Organization likes to use the example of Diotrephes as:
“A man mentioned by the apostle John in his letter to Gaius. In addition to being
ambitious, proud, disrespectful of apostolic authority, rebellious, and
inhospitable, Diotrephes tried to hinder those desiring to show hospitality to the
brothers and to expel these from the congregation”
69
In actuality, Diotrephes was being reprimanded for attempting to disfellowship “those
desiring to show hospitality to the brothers” by expelling them “from the congregation”.
Historical Watchtower Development
Disfellowshipping in it’s present form, was not practiced by the Organization until
1952. Originally, the
congregation as a whole discussed an individual's wrongdoing
and if they came to a near unanimous decision to disfellowship, the unrepentant sinner
was not shunned but treated as a ‘person of the nations’:
"The administration of discipline is not the function of the elders only, but of the
entire Church. … Thus it is evident that the Elders were in no sense to be
judges of the members-hearing and judgment were left to the local body, or
Church. … Indeed, even if the transgressor refuse to hear (obey) the decision of
the entire Church, no punishment is to be inflicted or even attempted. What
then? Merely the Church is to withdraw from him its fellowship and any and all
signs or manifestations of brotherhood. Thenceforth the offender is to be
treated "as a heathen man and a publican." Matt. 18:17"
70
71
Watchtower 1919 Mar 1 p.69 72 Watchtower 1930 October 1 p.301
73
Watchtower 1952 Mar. 1 p.147
"According to this Scripture the very most that the church could do would be
that, after having vainly endeavored to get the brother to repent and reform, it
should withdraw special brotherly fellowship from him until such time as he
would express willingness thereafter to do right. Then he should be received
again into full fellowship. In the meantime the brother may merely be treated in
the kindly, courteous way in which it would be proper for us to treat any publican
or Gentile, withholding the special rights or privileges or greetings or voting
opportunities that belong to the church as a class separate from the world"
71
Both Brother Russell and Judge Rutherford were more lenient towards doctrinal
disagreements, as they realized that trying to force all believers to think alike on
doctrine is what originally caused the “great apostasy” in the first place:
“Satans organization sails under the high-sounding name of "Christendom". It
boasts of a membership of over 500,000,000 persons. Its members are in
bondage to creeds, customs, rites and ceremonies; they dare not disown these
or criticize or expose them. To do so would bring down on their heads taunts,
reproaches, disfellowship and persecution. Many thousands of the Lords people
are held in these denominations as prisoners, afraid to express their disapproval
of the creeds, methods and customs of the organization.”
72
It was under Brother Knorr that the harsh set up the disfellowshipping arrangement
began and it is followed to this day. In the
Watchtower 1944 May 15 p.151,
responsibility to judge an individual was moved from the congregation to judicial
committees. A 1952
Watchtower article casually dismissed Jesus’ remarks to refer a
wrongdoer to the congregation, but with no explanation as why:
"There is one more scripture quite pertinent here, at Matthew 18:15-17. ... This
scripture here has nothing to do with disfellowshipping on a congregational
basis. When it says go to the congregation, it means go to the elders or the
mature ones in the congregation and discuss your own private difficulties. This
scripture has to do with merely a personal disfellowshipping."
73
This
Watchtower was devoted to delivering clear guidelines on updated Watchtower
disfellowshipping policy, clarifying what was to become an ever increasing list of
offenses. It denounced the disfellowshipped person in the strongest of terms:
“We might wonder, then, since this congregation which God is developing or
bringing into existence is based on love, why anyone should ever want to talk
about disfellowshipping or putting people out of this congregation. There
certainly must be some reason. Well, the reason for disfellowshipping is that
some persons get into this congregation of God that do not love Christ. …
Those who are acquainted with the situation in the congregation should never
say ‘Hello’ or ‘Goodbye’ to him. He is not welcome in our midst, we avoid him. …
Such an individual has no place in the clean organization or congregation of
46
74
Watchtower 1952 March 1 pp.131,134
75
See Crisis of Conscience p. 85
76
The Watchtower, March 15, 1980, p. 31
77
Ironically, when a member is disfellowshipped for perhaps refusing to accept an erroneous teaching
that the Governing Body members claim is “truth”, that person is not automatically re-instated with an
apology when the doctrine is changed down the road. Instead, the shunning remains intact because it is
claimed that the person “ran ahead of the Organization” and therefore, apparently deserved the
punishment even though their view may have been the one the Society is now promoting as “truth”, and
God. He should go back to the wicked group that he once came from and die
with that wicked group with Satan’s organization.”
74
In the
Watchtower 1955 October 1 p.607, even to associate with a disfellowshipped
person became a reason to be disfellowshipped
:
“If a publisher refuses to do this and ignores the prohibition on associating with
the disfellowshipped one, that publisher is rebelling against the congregation of
Jehovah, and “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as
idolatry and teraphim. … 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.”
Since the introduction of disfellowshipping in the 1940's, there have been a number of
changes in Watchtower doctrine and hence the reasons for being disfellowshipped
have also changed back and forth. How can this occur if the Organization’s rules are
directed by Jehovah? When a situation arises in a congregation that is not clearly
specified in the Bible or in the literature, and the elders and branch feel unable to deal
with it, it is referred to the Governing Body. How does the Governing Body arrive at a
new principle for being disfellowshipped? Does the Holy Spirit guide them to examine
scripture and arrive at a uniform consensus on what God’s standard is?
No. When a new principle is discussed a vote is taken. The vote does not have to be
unanimous, but rather, it is a two-thirds majority vote that decides the outcome.
75 For
this reason both the regulation on organ transplants and oral sex was able to be
changed back and forth within the space of little over a decade, with a devastating
effect on some Witnesses lives. For instance, the practice of smoking, while always
frowned upon, did not become a disfellowshipping offence until 1973. Having an organ
transplant was a disfellowshipping offense for over a decade, but as of 1980, it became
a “conscience matter”.
76 Oral or anal sex between married couples was classified as;
A
a disfellowshipping offence - Watchtower -1974 November 15 p.704
A
no longer an offence - Watchtower 1978 - February 15 pp.30-32
A
once again an offence - Watchtower 1983 - March 15 p.31
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for creating a ‘fence around The Law’, and promoted
mercy, common sense and compassion for his followers. Unfortunately, the same can
be said regarding the Governing Body’s harsh rules regarding disfellowshipping, which
inevitably tears families apart, can lead to severe traumatic depression or even suicide,
when many times, the offense for which the member was disfellowshipped for is
nowhere mentioned in the scriptures.
77
47
which all members must accept, lest they get disfellowshipped themselves.
78
2 Corinthians 2:5-11
Behind closed doors
In determining if a person should be disfellowshipped the elders form a judicial
committee to meet with the accused. This is done in private, and the accused is not
allowed to have a lawyer or recording device (although this probably violates his/her
Rights). The word "judicial committee" does not appear in the Bible and both the
Israelites and early Christian congregations kept matters open to ordinary persons.
Rather than being done in private in front of elders only, matters were done at the city
gates so a fair discussion with onlookers could be made. This prevented the injustice
that could (and still does) take place whenever a trial is held in private and where the
accused has few Rights.
Yet Jesus instructions at Matthew 18:17 says that unresolved wrongdoing should be
taken "to the congregation", not to a three-man body and certainly not in private.
Overly Harsh Punishment
Depression is not uncommon amongst Witnesses who have been disfellowshipped.
Even though the practice in the first century congregation bore no resemblance to the
extreme methods employed today in the Organization, even being treated as a “man of
the nations” was apparently punishment enough:
“Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU
to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke given by the
majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary now, you should
kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be
swallowed up by his being overly sad. Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR
love for him.”
78
Here Paul was actually concerned for this brothers’ emotional state of mind and not
simply “keeping the congregation clean”. He realized that the rebuke given by many
(though not all) of the congregation and for a limited time was “sufficient” and he
encouraged the congregation to “kindly forgive him and comfort him” in order that he
“not be swallowed up by his being overly sad.” Today, there is absolutely no
consideration whatsoever for a person’s mental and emotional state of mind, or even of
the possibility that he or she could be so traumatized that they could consider suicide.
The only thing to be considered is: Keeping the congregation clean. How exactly is this
any different than the harsh, legalistic practices that Jesus condemned the Pharisees
for?
When a Pharisee expressed surprise that Jesus did not do ritual washing before
dinner, Jesus' rebuke was particularly harsh:
48
79
Luke 11:42
"'But woe to YOU Pharisees, because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the
rue and of every [other] vegetable, but YOU pass by the justice and the love of
God!" (see also Matthew 12:1-10)
Matthew 12:7 “However, if YOU had
understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ YOU would not
have condemned the guiltless ones.”
79
Today, disfellowshipping can have such a traumatic effect on the individual, that
many contemplate and carry out suicide. It is not uncommon for the person to
suffer Post Traumatic Shock Disorder, as their entire life has been ripped apart.
Friends and family are no longer allowed to even greet them, lest they
jeopardize their own stand in the congregation and find themselves in the same
predicament.
Hundreds of thousands of Witnesses are currently disfellowshipped and
estranged from their families and friends. This can have a dramatic effect on a
person, often at a time when they most need help from others (especially minors
who are treated the same as adults when it comes to wrong doing). The
Watchtower Society claims that love is one of its most distinguishing marks and
that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a ‘worldwide’ loving brotherhood.
However, as we have seen, a comparison between how the Bible says to treat
wrongdoers with how the Watchtower enforces disfellowshipping shows the
Organization has gone way “beyond the scriptures”, using it as a method for
absolute control over its members. One of Jesus’ greatest commands was to
show love to one’s brother and to one’s neighbour (
Luke 10:27). The doctrine on
disfellowshipping puts serious question marks over any claim of love that
Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to make, especially as we have seen that
disfellowshipping today in the Organization, was not practiced in Jesus’ day.
49
