As brought out in this post, Jehovah’s Witnesses shun former members who are disfellowshipped (excommunicated) or disassociated (making the choice to officially leave).  This shunning is all-encompassing and even includes family members.  Other JWs will literally turn their backs on former members and some even quickly walk away when they see disfellowshipped or disassociated ones.

While this shunning is very complete and horrific for most former members, there is one group of persons who are seemingly exempt from this rule, and that’s married men. Consider:

Encouraged to Shun Family

Lest you think I’m being overly dramatic when it comes to the JW practice of shunning family, note this audio capture of a discourse given at their recent summer conventions.  In it, a member of their governing body, which is a small group of men that have absolute authority over the religion, talks openly about this practice.  He mentions outright ones who cannot speak to family and even talks about “young ones” who are disfellowshipped, and whose family ties are now severed.

Exemption From Shunning for Married Men

If you visit the official website for Jehovah’s Witnesses at www.jw.org, and then click on About Us, then Frequently Asked Questions, you find a question about shunning former members.  On that page you can find the following statement:

What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.

Well isn’t that special.  Even “young ones” are not spoken to by family members but a married man still has his “blood ties” and “family affections.”  You can withhold your affections from your own young children and even from your wife or mother, but not your husband or father.

Note that it has this distinction; it doesn’t say “What of a man or woman who is disfellowshipped?  What of children or immediate family who are disfellowshipped?”  They’re not talking about family members in general terms, but only a married man in particular and no one else.  If this exception was applied to all family members, they would mention family, but they don’t; they say “a man” specifically.

The Double Standard of the Headship Authority

The reason for this exemption is that a married man is considered the head of the household with authority over everyone in that home, including the wife and children.  This authority is not diminished if he’s not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whether he never became a JW or because he left the organization.

This position the man enjoys as the family head gives him many special privileges, for example, in this post I note how a man can join the meetings his wife has with elders if she’s accused of adultery, but she cannot be part of his meetings if he’s the one accused.  The elders are also instructed to keep his confidentiality and not tell the wife any details if he confesses adultery to them, but they are not instructed to keep her confidentiality.

So the double standard of this headship arrangement even goes so far so as to “overrule” this shunning arrangement.  Wives and mothers and even “young ones” who are disfellowshipped can be cut out of the lives of their family with communication kept to a minimum if they communicate at all, but for a husband and father, his “family affections” remain.

Returning for Association

The other blatant double standard in this arrangement is shown by the speaker’s comments at around the 5:00 mark, where he notes that often a person is compelled to come back into the organization so that they can associate with their family once again.  He says, “So if we associate with them when they’re disfellowshipped we could actually be taking away from them a motivating factor for wanting to be reinstated.”

If this is really the case, then why would there be exceptions to this shunning rule?  Does the organization not want to motivate married men to return?  If this motivating factor were so strong and effective, then I would assume it would be applied to everyone and not just a select few who are disfellowshiped or who disassociate themselves.

If ignoring and shunning a person is so loving because it encourages ones to return to the religion, then wouldn’t it be unloving to refuse to shun a married man?  These statements either prove that JWs don’t love married men, or they prove that the shunning arrangement really isn’t motivated by love after all.

When Children Are Involved

Punishing mothers, sisters, wives, as well as siblings, beloved grandfathers, uncles, and other men who fall outside of this category is cruel and unnecessary enough.  However, I would wonder why Jehovah’s Witnessed don’t draw the line at shunning when it comes to children or “young ones.”

Consider; if a man’s authority is taken into account for this shunning arrangement, wouldn’t a child’s age and relationship with their parents also come into play? Children must eventually take responsibility for their own behavior, yes, but are they held so accountable for what they do while they’re still “young ones” that they deserve complete banishment from the family?

Children still need guidance from parents and still need to be taught by them, otherwise they would be considered adults the moment they hit puberty.  A husband on the other hand doesn’t need to have authority over his family and these special privileges for anyone to thrive; single parent families and single women somehow manage to flourish without men in the home, but “young ones” cut off from the affections of their parents do not.

I need to question Jehovah’s Witnesses and their way of doing things and this hypocritical double standard when it comes to shunning everyone except a married man.  Is shunning really supposed to motivate people to come back, and if so, why isn’t it applied to these men?

*** ***

Please share. It’s vital that the truth about the policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses when it comes to shunning families be made public, especially for women and children who may be doubly victimized by this practice. Thank you.