In any event, somewhere along the line, the organisation will seek to have you disfellowshipped anyhow. A person who ceases Witness activity, in most cases, no longer subscribes to the Witness philosophy having lost confidence in the organisation’s assertions of itself. Such being the case – and having an appreciation of human psychology – such person will have unfavourable, but valid, things to say about the organisation. And the moment such Witness becomes vocal about their grievances, they will be flagged for disfellowshipping under the vast-encompassing label of ‘apostasy.’

Now, do they really expect an aggrieved person to remain mum? This betrays a lack of understanding of human nature. What they are proposing here, really – whether they realise it or not – is an artificial kind of life. An artificial existence. You’re expected to play along or risk walking the plank. The stakes are high and the consequences are real. For many people, then, it’s just simpler to capitulate. And such capitulation, if I might add, is not necessarily the product of a weak constitution on their part; sometimes it’s just a profound appreciation of the prevailing circumstances.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating, the organisation does not provide Witnesses with a secure platform to ventilate their concerns. Articulation of dissatisfaction and negativity, notwithstanding its validity, will open one up to the risk of being labelled an apostate. And so you become a prisoner of this system… this maze… that the organisation has contrived. You are intellectually and psychologically in bondage… enslaved to this ‘plantation.’

This, dear Watchtower, is no way to live.

What this approach reveals, I put it to you, is that the organisation does not concern itself with the broad matrix of the situation. They don’t care about the causal nexus that led to your departure. No. Instead, they have a singular outlook. They analyse things in isolation. All they know is: If you disassociate from the organisation, we’re not talking to you anymore. Finish ‘n klaar!

In what way, pray tell, is this treatment loving? To insist on such treatment, despite the ‘mitigating’ factors, really demonstrates an unwarranted desire to attain some kind of moral high ground; because, to shun a victim so coldly cements the notion that the victim is wrong and that you are right.

Why, this has ‘clinical narcissism’ written all over it. That is why they frame a victim’s departure as ‘leaving Jehovah,’ you see. In that way, it not only gives them permission to treat you like shit, but it takes the sting away from their conscience. Indeed, if you want people to do the unthinkable, convince them it’s what God wants. History itself bears witness that some of the vilest, most inhumane, things have been celebrated in the name of God.

So no, friend, there is absolutely nothing loving about this.

Those Who Disassociate Shun the Congregation?

Regarding members who disassociate, Spinks echoes O’Brien’s earlier sentiment to the effect that to ‘disfellowship’ is when the congregation shuns a person, but that to ‘disassociate’ is when a Witness (effectively) shuns the congregation.

Ha!

I’ve been a Witness for a long time and… I consider myself intelligent, but I’ve never heard it put like that before.

The adoption of such a view is nothing short of psychological manipulation. If the disassociated person meets an active Witness on the street and says ‘Hello’, will the active Witness respond? Will the Witness even make eye contact? Not likely, papi! Why? Because Witnesses are schooled against communicating with former members; they adopt what I’ve recently termed as the ‘Batman posture.’ So really, then, when we look at the substance rather than the form, who’s shunning who here?

Witnesses who ‘disassociate’ don’t disassociate from the people, they disassociate from the organisation. They no longer view the organisation as being the true religion, and so, as a matter of principle, no longer want to be associated with it – it is, in fact, an ethical position to take under the circumstances. These ones are able to distinguish the organisation from the actual individual members of that organisation. To a clear-minded person, these two entities are distinct – a fact which the organisation apparently refuses to accept.

Respectfully, therefore, I find Mr. Spinks’ borrowed outlook to be a strained one at best. It is a specious argument that amounts to a bastardisation of logic… of epic proportion at that. It’s no wonder, then, that the respectable Commission held Spinks and O’Brien in derision. These men demonstrate not only a flawed outlook, but an inflexible stubbornness to see reason. Why, they evade logic as though dodging bullets from a lethal firearm.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save