Disfellowshipping is a form of church discipline used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to expel and shun a member who is found to be unrepentantly committing a serious sin. The purpose of disfellowshipping is to protect the spiritual welfare of the congregation and promote repentance on the part of the wrongdoer.
Origins in the Bible
Though the term “disfellowshipping” is not found in the Bible, the practice has scriptural basis. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 instructs Christians not to associate with a “brother” who is sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, verbally abusive, a drunkard, or a swindler. The congregation in Corinth was advised to “remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15 also admonish congregation members to “keep away” from those who are “not living according to the teaching that you received from us.”
Disfellowshipping in Jehovah’s Witness Practice
Jehovah’s Witnesses view disfellowshipping as a last resort to help a baptized Witness repent from serious sin. Disfellowshipping is initiated when a judicial committee comprised of elders determines the individual is unrepentantly, brazenly and deliberately sinning in a way that threatens their relationship with God. Common grounds for disfellowshipping include:
- Unrepentant gross sins like murder, child abuse, rape, fraud, orosexuality.
- Apostasy – Publicly speaking against Jehovah’s Witness doctrines and promoting sects or false teachings.
- Brazen, unapologetic conduct that threatens congregation moral values like drunkenness or loose conduct.
- Continued, unrepentant association with disfellowshipped people.
Before disfellowshipping, the elders first counsel and warn the wrongdoer to repent. Disfellowshipping only occurs after repeated admonitions and evidence of an unrepentant attitude. When disfellowshipping is announced, no reasons are given to the congregation. Members are simply directed to avoid unnecessary association with the individual. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe this furthers the discipline’s purpose to shock the conscience of the wrongdoer and protect the congregation from bad influence.
Disfellowshipped individuals are still permitted to attend meetings but cannot participate. They cannot speak to congregation members beyond family members in the same home. The hope is that this isolation will spur them to repentance and restoration of fellowship with God and the congregation. Disfellowshipping lasts until the judicial committee is convinced of genuine repentance and remorse. Individuals can be reinstated after submitting a formal request and completing a redemptive process. However, those disfellowshipped twice or practicing gross sins like child abuse are often not reinstated but considered unsuitable for continued congregation membership.
Biblical Support for Disfellowshipping
Jehovah’s Witnesses base the practice of disfellowshipping on several scriptures:
- 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 – Paul instructed Christians to remove unrepentant wrongdoers from the congregation.
- 2 John 9-11 – John taught not to wish Godspeed to deceivers and not to share fellowship with them.
- 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14 – Paul commanded congregation members to withdraw from disorderly brothers.
- Romans 16:17 – Paul warned against those causing divisions among Christians.
- 1 Timothy 1:20 – Paul approved of expelling blasphemers to teach them not to keep blaspheming.
- Matthew 18:15-17 – Jesus outlined steps of addressing wrongdoing in the congregation, culminating in expulsion.
These verses establish the practice of expelling unrepentant sinners to preserve congregation holiness and influence the wrongdoer to change their ways. Disfellowshipping is arguably an application of these Scriptural principles.
Purposes and Effects of Disfellowshipping
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe disfellowshipping produces several positive effects:
- Upholds God’s standards of holiness and conduct in the congregation.
- Protects members from corrupting influences.
- Shocks the disfellowshipped one to spur repentance and reformation to regain God’s favor.
- Deters others from wrongdoing to avoid discipline.
- Keeps the congregation clean and preserves its spiritual health.
Consequently, Jehovah’s Witnesses argue disfellowshipping benefits the offender, congregation members, and organization at large. It enables an environment where Jehovah’s standards thrive.
Opponents counter that disfellowshipping is unloving, abusive, and psychologically harmful. They believe it divides families and fosters judgmental attitudes among members. Some even liken it to shunning.
Shunning vs Disfellowshipping
Critics often equate disfellowshipping with shunning. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain subtle differences:
- Shunning typically lacks a disciplinary aspect. It is often an unofficial practice among members.
- Disfellowshipping is formal expulsion by a judicial committee of elders after failed admonitions. The congregation is then required to limit social interactions.
- Shunning is usually without resolution. Disfellowshipping aims for repentance and restoration.
- Shunning permanently excludes members. Disfellowshipping only persists until repentance is evident.
Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses argue disfellowshipping is more procedural and structured than shunning. The goal is redemption, not permanent banishment. Some believe this distinction is negligible and any coerced avoidance of former members is unethical. But most Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that the differences are meaningful and justify the practice.
Comparisons with Other Faith Groups
Disfellowshipping as practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses bears resemblance to similar excommunication and shunning practices in other faith groups throughout history.
Catholic Excommunication
Until the 20th century, excommunicated Catholics suffered extreme isolation and shunning. They were prohibited from receiving sacraments or associating with other parishioners. Excommunication aimed to encourage repentance and reconciliation with the Church.
Modern Catholicism still permits excommunication but no longer mandates shunning of excommunicated members. Excommunicants cannot receive Communion but remain part of the congregation.
Amish Shunning
Amish congregations utilize Meidung, or social avoidance, to punish serious transgressions and motivate repentance. Shunning ranges from softened forms like restricted interaction to strict avoidance where the offender is treated as dead by the community.
Critics condemn Amish shunning as coercive and abusive. Defenders contend it upholds community standards and deters deviations from tradition. It remains an integral aspect of Amish society.
Mormon Disfellowshipping
Mormons excommunicate members for serious violations like murder, incest, or apostasy. Excommunicants cannot participate in rituals or associate with members. Shunning is not mandatory but common. Excommunication lasts until church leaders approve re-baptism.
Mormon disfellowshipping shares similarities with Jehovah’s Witness practices but differs in procedures. It is perhaps the most analogous to the Witness form of congregation discipline.
Emotional Impact of Disfellowshipping
Being disfellowshipped and shunned by Jehovah’s Witnesses often produces profound emotional consequences:
- Depression from losing entire social circles.
- Loneliness and isolation.
- Anger at perceived injustice.
- Fear and anxiety about being shunned.
- Emotional trauma from family divisions.
- Suicidal thoughts in extreme cases.
Many disfellowshipped individuals require therapy and counselling to process the grief. Support groups exist to help those adjusting to life after disfellowshipping.
However, defenders of the practice argue such emotional impacts do not nullify its validity if it aligns with Scripture. They also maintain that any distress ultimately lies with the wrongdoing of the disfellowshipped individual, not the discipline itself. But even some active Witnesses acknowledge the trauma of forced shunning and question its necessity.
Legal Challenges to Disfellowshipping
Some disfellowshipped Witnesses have legally challenged the practice as abusive:
- In 1981, a California court ruled disfellowshipping unconstitutional after a Witness sued his congregation elders.
- A 2015 Canada Supreme Court decision upheld the Witnesses’ right to disfellowship as protected by freedom of religion.
- Courts have ruled both for and against the Witnesses, often basing decisions on protections for religious discipline.
- Recent lawsuits allege psychological harm to children of disfellowshipped parents forced to shun them.
Such cases exemplify the complex intersection between religious autonomy and individual rights. Witnesses argue court interference violates their right to determine membership requirements. Opponents maintain disfellowshipping creates an abusive environment violating human rights. Legal precedents remain mixed.
Theological Objections to Disfellowshipping
Some Christian scholars raise theological objections to the Jehovah’s Witness practice of disfellowshipping:
- It goes beyond scriptural directives for discipline.
- Isolating sinners is unloving and hinders reformation.
- Only God has authority to condemn individuals.
- Salvation depends on faith, not human judgments of merit.
- Disfellowshipping appears rooted in organizational control, not biblical teaching.
- Shunning former members lacks a clear biblical basis.
However, Witness leadership insists disfellowshipping precisely follows biblical standards for congregation holiness and restoring transgressors. They emphasize that discretional authority for discipline belongs to appointed elders acting collectively under the Bible’s guidelines.
Prospects for Reform
Some predict Jehovah’s Witnesses may gradually reform disfellowshipping practices to address growing criticisms:
- Softening the mandated shunning of disfellowshipped ones.
- Exercising disfellowshipping less frequently or for fewer offenses.
- Discontinuing disfellowshipping of non-baptized children of Jehovah’s Witness parents.
- Allowing non-disfellowshipped family contact with disfellowshipped relatives.
- Reinterpreting biblical support for extreme shunning.
However, major reforms seem unlikely given the doctrinal centrality of disfellowshipping to Witnesses. Ending or significantly modifying the practice would require radical policy changes and biblical reinterpretation by leadership. The organization grants elders significant discretion but has firmly upheld core teachings on excluding unrepentant wrongdoers.
Conclusion
Disfellowshipping and congregational shunning remain controversial but deeply entrenched practices among Jehovah’s Witnesses. The religion views expelling unrepentant sinners as vital to honor God and maintain purity in the organization. Yet critics highlight its emotional trauma and alleged unbiblical basis. Striking a balance between protecting members and promoting redemption of offenders continues to challenge Witness leadership. Disfellowshipping seems destined to remain divisive both within and outside the Jehovah’s Witness community.