Shunning and family1950s1970s1980s2010s2020sEvidence collection
Belegsammlung
Shunning, discipline and family separation
Was die eigene Literatur der Organisation den Mitgliedern aufträgt, wenn jemand entfernt wird oder geht, genau nach Kategorien getrennt dargestellt, mit den Änderungen von 2024 und dem, was sie unberührt ließen; die von der Organisation genannte Begründung; und die Feststellungen von Gerichten, einer Untersuchungskommission und von Forschenden.
From 1981 to March 2024 the rule was not even to greet such a person. Since 15 March 2024 a ‘simple greeting’ and an invitation to a meeting are conscience matters; socialising, eating together and ‘extended conversation’ remain forbidden.Source: jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 15. März 2024
Inactive members who simply stop attending are not shunned by published rule; a person who wants to be free of the organisation’s discipline must disassociate, and is then treated as removed.Source: Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), 2019
Die veröffentlichten Regeln nach Kategorien, vor und nach 2024
Es kommt darauf an, genau zu unterscheiden, wer wer ist. Die Literatur der Organisation behandelt diese Gruppen unterschiedlich, und jede Beschreibung davon sollte das ebenfalls tun.
Contact rules by category (published wording, paraphrased where marked)
Category
Before March 2024
After March and August 2024
What did not change
Sources
Removed (“disfellowshipped”) adult, not a relative
No spiritual or social fellowship, “not even eating”; no greeting (a “simple ‘Hello’” warned against). Persistent association could itself be a judicial matter.
Conscience may allow “a simple greeting” and a welcome at a congregation meeting, and an invitation to a meeting. Elders follow up after “a few months”.
“Stop keeping company … not even eating”; no socialising; no “extended conversation”; announcement wording unchanged.
1981: “viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped”; 2019: “treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person”. The announcement wording is now identical for both.
No published change; 2024 texts use “removed” for both.
Same treatment as removed. Norway’s Supreme Court records shunning of both groups as current practice.
1981: “avoid needless association”. 1988: “almost no contact at all … kept to a minimum”. 2008: “do not look for excuses”. 2013: not by e-mail. 2017: no “telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media”.
No published revision. The conscience greeting applies to meetings. In 2026 the organisation did not dispute in court that the threshold for contact is “relatively high”.
And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?
The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum
Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
Ab September 1981 wandte Der Wachtturm 2. Johannes 9-11 auf alle Ausgeschlossenen an und warnte, 'ein einfaches "Hallo" gegenüber jemandem kann der erste Schritt sein, aus dem sich ein Gespräch und vielleicht sogar eine Freundschaft entwickelt', und fragte: 'Möchten wir diesen ersten Schritt gegenüber einer ausgeschlossenen Person tun?'; er verwendete für die Praxis auch das Wort 'shunning' (meiden). Source: The Watchtower, 15. September 1981Source: “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (lv), 2008Source: The Watchtower, 15. April 1988
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Im August 2024 erklärte die Organisation: 'In der Vergangenheit haben wir eine solche Person nicht gegrüßt', machte einen einfachen Gruß bei Zusammenkünften zu einer Gewissensfrage und beschränkte 2. Johannes 9-11 auf Abtrünnige.
15. September 1981 · pp.20-26 · par. 12-16, 21-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
Par. 21-23 (pp. 24-25) apply 2 John 9-11 to expelled persons; par. 13-16 create the category of disassociation (by statement or by joining an organisation contrary to the Bible) and direct that such persons be 'viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped'; par. 27 says a member who will not cease fellowship with an expelled person 'must be removed from the congregation'.
2008 · pp.207-209 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home.”
Household: 'normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue'; parents may study with a disfellowshipped minor at home. Quotes the 1981 'simple Hello' passage. Footnote a: principles 'apply equally to those who disassociate themselves'. WOL copy is the 2014 printing.
15. April 1988 · pp.26-31 · par. 3, 13-14, 17, 20, 23; footnote a · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”
Household relatives: 'normal family affections and dealings can continue' (par. 13). Reports the outcome of Paul v. Watchtower and concludes a shunned person 'cannot recover damages ... the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions' (par. 20). Footnote a: 2 John 11 'could well mean not to say even "hello" to such ones'.
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Im Wachtturm von 1988 hieß es, wer sich distanziert, 'empfindet einen Verlust, den er durch sein eigenes Handeln herbeigeführt hat'.
15. September 1981 · pp.20-26 · par. 12-16, 21-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
Par. 21-23 (pp. 24-25) apply 2 John 9-11 to expelled persons; par. 13-16 create the category of disassociation (by statement or by joining an organisation contrary to the Bible) and direct that such persons be 'viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped'; par. 27 says a member who will not cease fellowship with an expelled person 'must be removed from the congregation'.
10. Juni 1987 · pp.819 F.2d 875 · paras 1, 11-12, 23, 36-37 (as numbered in the Public.Resource.Org text) · United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
“Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion. ... The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by Paul as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.”
Facts: Paul left in 1975 after her parents were disfellowshipped; after the 1981 change, former friends 'told Paul that she was to be treated as if she had been disfellowshiped and that they could not speak with her'. Holding: 'Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah’s Witness, we find that the "free exercise" provision ... precludes the plaintiff from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning.' Argued 7 March 1986. Certiorari denied, 484 U.S. 926 (2 Nov 1987) (CourtListener search record opened).
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987), No. 85-4012, Opinion by Reinhardt, Circuit Judge (Wright, Tang, Reinhardt)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full opinion text opened on law.resource.org (Public.Resource.Org copy of the Federal Reporter); wording confirmed. Justia, FindLaw and CourtListener pages were blocked or empty.
Herkunft des Scans.Public.Resource.Org (public-domain court opinion).
2019 · pp.141-156 · par. 24-40 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This will alert faithful ones in the congregation to stop associating with that person.—1 Cor. 5:11.”
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), Chapter 14, Maintaining the Peace and Cleanness of the Congregation
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Raw WOL HTML fetched; wording and page markers 141-156 confirmed; publishers' page (doc 1102014949) opened for edition data. Still uses 'disfellowshipped' as at access date.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-od-2019-organized-ch14
Die seit 1981 veröffentlichte Regel unterscheidet zwischen Verwandten im selben Haushalt, bei denen 'normal family affections and dealings can continue' (die normale familiäre Zuneigung und der normale Umgang weitergehen können), während die geistige Gemeinschaft endet, und Verwandten außerhalb des Haushalts, mit denen 'it might be possible to have almost no contact at all' (es möglich sein könnte, fast gar keinen Kontakt zu haben) und bei denen jeder Kontakt in 'necessary family matters' (notwendigen Familienangelegenheiten) 'kept to a minimum' (auf ein Mindestmaß beschränkt) werden soll. Source: The Watchtower, 15. September 1981Source: The Watchtower, 15. April 1988Source: “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (lv), 2008Source: jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, 18. September 2026
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Die aktuelle FAQ beschreibt nur den Fall des gemeinsamen Haushalts ('normal family affections and dealings continue') und schweigt zu Verwandten außerhalb davon.
15. September 1981 · pp.26-31 · par. 11, 13, 18-19, 22-26 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum.”
Distinguishes relatives in the household (family ties remain, 'spiritual ties have been completely severed'; a disfellowshipped minor is still cared for and disciplined but parents 'would not conduct a Bible study directly with the child') from relatives outside it ('limited need to care for necessary family matters'); discusses weddings, gatherings and funerals.
15. April 1988 · pp.26-31 · par. 3, 13-14, 17, 20, 23; footnote a · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”
Household relatives: 'normal family affections and dealings can continue' (par. 13). Reports the outcome of Paul v. Watchtower and concludes a shunned person 'cannot recover damages ... the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions' (par. 20). Footnote a: 2 John 11 'could well mean not to say even "hello" to such ones'.
2008 · pp.207-209 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home.”
Household: 'normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue'; parents may study with a disfellowshipped minor at home. Quotes the 1981 'simple Hello' passage. Footnote a: principles 'apply equally to those who disassociate themselves'. WOL copy is the 2014 printing.
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”
Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).
Notes.Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation
Zwischen 2008 und 2017 hat die Organisation die Regel für Verwandte außerhalb des Haushalts schrittweise genauer gefasst: 'Loyale christliche Familienangehörige suchen nicht nach Ausreden, um mit einem ausgeschlossenen Verwandten, der nicht zu Hause lebt, Kontakt zu haben' (Buch von 2008), 'Suche nicht nach Ausreden, um mit einem ausgeschlossenen Familienmitglied Umgang zu haben, zum Beispiel per E-Mail' (Januar 2013) und 'wir müssen den normalen Kontakt zu einem ausgeschlossenen Familienmitglied per Telefon, SMS, Brief, E-Mail oder soziale Medien meiden' (Oktober 2017). Source: “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (lv), 2008Source: The Watchtower (Study Edition), 15. Januar 2013Source: The Watchtower (Study Edition), Oktober 2017
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Die Organisation stellt dies als Loyalität dar, der 'das Wohl des Übeltäters am Herzen liegt'.
2008 · pp.207-209 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home.”
Household: 'normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue'; parents may study with a disfellowshipped minor at home. Quotes the 1981 'simple Hello' passage. Footnote a: principles 'apply equally to those who disassociate themselves'. WOL copy is the 2014 printing.
15. Januar 2013 · pp.12-16 · par. 16-20 (quote at par. 19, p. 16) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else—including the family bond. ... Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail. (1 Cor. 5:11)”
Addressed to parents grieving a disfellowshipped child; the 'e-mail' sentence confirms the outside-household rule extends to electronic contact.
Oktober 2017 · pp.12-16 · par. 17-20 (quote at par. 19) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.”
Section 'If a Family Member Leaves Jehovah'; the most explicit published list of communication channels to avoid with a disfellowshipped or disassociated relative.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for The Watchtower (Study Edition), The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword”
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Raw WOL HTML fetched; wording and page markers 12-16 confirmed. The phrase suggested in the brief ('loyally supporting the disfellowshipping decision ... even a family member') does not occur in this article.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-w-2017-1000-not-peace-but-a-sword
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Die Mehrheit des norwegischen Gerichts stützte sich auf diesen Absatz für die Feststellung, dass 'not... any contact with former members entails a risk of disfellowshipping' — nicht jeder Kontakt mit ehemaligen Mitgliedern bringe das Risiko eines Ausschlusses mit sich.
April 2021 · ch. 12 par. 17, 44-46; ch. 16 par. 27-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (published as inquiry evidence by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, New Zealand)
“If a publisher in the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. ... He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision.”
Par. 17(1): wilful association with disfellowshipped or disassociated non-relatives 'would warrant judicial action'; par. 44-46 on persons inactive for many years; ch. 16 par. 29-31: announcement 'It should read as follows: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."', takes effect at the announcement, S-77 form sent to the Service Department.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for “Shepherd the Flock of God”—1 Peter 5:2 (ks), April 2021 revision, chapters 12, 14, 16 and 22, as produced to the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (document JHV0000012), Chapter 12 par. 17(1) and 44-46; Chapter 16 par. 27-31
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.PDF (35 pages) downloaded from the inquiry's evidence library and text-extracted; wording confirmed. Cited as a public-inquiry exhibit, not from any leaked copy. The Norwegian Supreme Court quotes the identical par. 17 text from the 2019 edition (para 127).
Herkunft des Scans.Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (New Zealand) evidence library; copyright Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: August 2024: 'Der Zweck dieser Bekanntgabe ist nicht, den Übeltäter zu demütigen. Vielmehr erfolgt sie, damit die Versammlung der biblischen Ermahnung folgen kann, "den Umgang einzustellen"'.
2019 · pp.141-156 · par. 24-40 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This will alert faithful ones in the congregation to stop associating with that person.—1 Cor. 5:11.”
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), Chapter 14, Maintaining the Peace and Cleanness of the Congregation
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Raw WOL HTML fetched; wording and page markers 141-156 confirmed; publishers' page (doc 1102014949) opened for edition data. Still uses 'disfellowshipped' as at access date.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-od-2019-organized-ch14
April 2021 · ch. 12 par. 17, 44-46; ch. 16 par. 27-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (published as inquiry evidence by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, New Zealand)
“If a publisher in the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. ... He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision.”
Par. 17(1): wilful association with disfellowshipped or disassociated non-relatives 'would warrant judicial action'; par. 44-46 on persons inactive for many years; ch. 16 par. 29-31: announcement 'It should read as follows: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."', takes effect at the announcement, S-77 form sent to the Service Department.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for “Shepherd the Flock of God”—1 Peter 5:2 (ks), April 2021 revision, chapters 12, 14, 16 and 22, as produced to the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (document JHV0000012), Chapter 12 par. 17(1) and 44-46; Chapter 16 par. 27-31
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.PDF (35 pages) downloaded from the inquiry's evidence library and text-extracted; wording confirmed. Cited as a public-inquiry exhibit, not from any leaked copy. The Norwegian Supreme Court quotes the identical par. 17 text from the 2019 edition (para 127).
Herkunft des Scans.Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (New Zealand) evidence library; copyright Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
August 2024 · pp.26-31 · par. 3-6, 10-15; footnote b; box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.”
Footnote b retires 'disfellowshipped' for 'removed from the congregation'; par. 4 keeps the announcement 'no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; par. 13 keeps 'stop keeping company ... not even eating'; par. 15 and the box restrict 2 John 9-11 to 'apostates and others who actively promote wrong conduct'; par. 6, 10-12 on follow-up visits and reinstatement. No revised guidance on relatives outside the household.
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”
Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).
Notes.Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation
And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?
2 John 9-11 was applied to every expelled person; in 1985 the organisation said the verse had ‘a wider application’ than to false teachers.Source: The Watchtower, 15. Juli 1985
15 March and August 2024
‘In the past, we would not greet such a person’
In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.
Am 15. März 2024 gab das Mitglied der leitenden Körperschaft Mark Sanderson bekannt, dass Verkündiger 'ihr biblisch geschultes Gewissen gebrauchen' dürfen, um einer entfernten Person, die eine Zusammenkunft besucht, 'einen einfachen Gruß' zu entbieten, dass sie eine solche Person zu einer Zusammenkunft einladen dürfen, dass Älteste entfernte Personen 'nach einigen Monaten' erneut aufsuchen und auch vor langer Zeit entfernte Personen besuchen werden und dass zunächst zwei Älteste (statt eines Komitees) mit einem getauften Minderjährigen und seinen Eltern zusammenkommen; er fügte hinzu, 'wir pflegen keinen geselligen Umgang mit denen, die aus der Versammlung entfernt wurden'. Source: jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 15. März 2024Source: The Watchtower (Study Edition), August 2024Source: The Watchtower (Study Edition), August 2024
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Die Organisation beschreibt die Anpassungen als Ausdruck 'der Liebe und Barmherzigkeit Jehovas' und von 2. Petrus 3:9.
15. März 2024 · Mark Sanderson (Governing Body) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Under our current arrangement, we don’t say a greeting to individuals who’ve been removed from the congregation. However, the Governing Body has decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide whether to give a simple greeting and welcome a disfellowshipped individual who attends a congregation meeting.”
Presented by Governing Body member Mark Sanderson (20 min 02 s; media id docid-1112024005). Also announces: follow-up meeting 'after a few months'; visits to those removed long ago; two elders to meet a baptised minor and parents instead of a committee; members may invite a removed person to a meeting; 'we don’t socialize with those who are removed'; 1 Cor. 5:13 'remove' terminology; sisters may wear slacks.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 2024 Governing Body Update #2
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.jw.org page opened (published 15 March 2024) and the organisation's own English subtitle file (https://cfp2.jw-cdn.org/a/ceb7d7/1/o/1112024005_E_cnt_1.vtt, from the jw.org mediator API record docid-1112024005_E_1_VIDEO) read in full; quotations are from that subtitle text.
August 2024 · pp.26-31 · par. 3-6, 10-15; footnote b; box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.”
Footnote b retires 'disfellowshipped' for 'removed from the congregation'; par. 4 keeps the announcement 'no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; par. 13 keeps 'stop keeping company ... not even eating'; par. 15 and the box restrict 2 John 9-11 to 'apostates and others who actively promote wrong conduct'; par. 6, 10-12 on follow-up visits and reinstatement. No revised guidance on relatives outside the household.
August 2024 · pp.20-25 · par. 17-18 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“What about baptized minors—those under 18 years of age—who engage in serious wrongdoing? The body of elders will arrange for two elders to meet with the minor and his Christian parents. ... However, what if a baptized minor unrepentantly persists in a wrong course? In that case, a committee of elders will meet with him along with his Christian parents.”
The 2024 procedure for baptised minors; par. 17 confirms reproof may still be announced 'as a warning to the rest'. Quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court at para 94.
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: FAQ: 'wir pflegen keinen geselligen Umgang mit jemandem, der entfernt worden ist. Wir ignorieren ihn jedoch nicht völlig'.
August 2024 · pp.26-31 · par. 3-6, 10-15; footnote b; box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.”
Footnote b retires 'disfellowshipped' for 'removed from the congregation'; par. 4 keeps the announcement 'no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; par. 13 keeps 'stop keeping company ... not even eating'; par. 15 and the box restrict 2 John 9-11 to 'apostates and others who actively promote wrong conduct'; par. 6, 10-12 on follow-up visits and reinstatement. No revised guidance on relatives outside the household.
15. März 2024 · Mark Sanderson (Governing Body) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Under our current arrangement, we don’t say a greeting to individuals who’ve been removed from the congregation. However, the Governing Body has decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide whether to give a simple greeting and welcome a disfellowshipped individual who attends a congregation meeting.”
Presented by Governing Body member Mark Sanderson (20 min 02 s; media id docid-1112024005). Also announces: follow-up meeting 'after a few months'; visits to those removed long ago; two elders to meet a baptised minor and parents instead of a committee; members may invite a removed person to a meeting; 'we don’t socialize with those who are removed'; 1 Cor. 5:13 'remove' terminology; sisters may wear slacks.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 2024 Governing Body Update #2
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.jw.org page opened (published 15 March 2024) and the organisation's own English subtitle file (https://cfp2.jw-cdn.org/a/ceb7d7/1/o/1112024005_E_cnt_1.vtt, from the jw.org mediator API record docid-1112024005_E_1_VIDEO) read in full; quotations are from that subtitle text.
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”
Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).
Notes.Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation
August 2024 · pp.26-31 · par. 3-6, 10-15; footnote b; box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.”
Footnote b retires 'disfellowshipped' for 'removed from the congregation'; par. 4 keeps the announcement 'no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; par. 13 keeps 'stop keeping company ... not even eating'; par. 15 and the box restrict 2 John 9-11 to 'apostates and others who actively promote wrong conduct'; par. 6, 10-12 on follow-up visits and reinstatement. No revised guidance on relatives outside the household.
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”
Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).
Notes.Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation
15. März 2024 · Mark Sanderson (Governing Body) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Under our current arrangement, we don’t say a greeting to individuals who’ve been removed from the congregation. However, the Governing Body has decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide whether to give a simple greeting and welcome a disfellowshipped individual who attends a congregation meeting.”
Presented by Governing Body member Mark Sanderson (20 min 02 s; media id docid-1112024005). Also announces: follow-up meeting 'after a few months'; visits to those removed long ago; two elders to meet a baptised minor and parents instead of a committee; members may invite a removed person to a meeting; 'we don’t socialize with those who are removed'; 1 Cor. 5:13 'remove' terminology; sisters may wear slacks.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 2024 Governing Body Update #2
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.jw.org page opened (published 15 March 2024) and the organisation's own English subtitle file (https://cfp2.jw-cdn.org/a/ceb7d7/1/o/1112024005_E_cnt_1.vtt, from the jw.org mediator API record docid-1112024005_E_1_VIDEO) read in full; quotations are from that subtitle text.
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Der Oberste Gerichtshof Norwegens befand, das Verfahren von 2024 sei 'rücksichtsvoller als früher', wenn auch für ein Kind 'belastend und demütigend', und keine 'psychische Gewalt'.
August 2024 · pp.20-25 · par. 17-18 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“What about baptized minors—those under 18 years of age—who engage in serious wrongdoing? The body of elders will arrange for two elders to meet with the minor and his Christian parents. ... However, what if a baptized minor unrepentantly persists in a wrong course? In that case, a committee of elders will meet with him along with his Christian parents.”
The 2024 procedure for baptised minors; par. 17 confirms reproof may still be announced 'as a warning to the rest'. Quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court at para 94.
15. März 2024 · Mark Sanderson (Governing Body) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Under our current arrangement, we don’t say a greeting to individuals who’ve been removed from the congregation. However, the Governing Body has decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide whether to give a simple greeting and welcome a disfellowshipped individual who attends a congregation meeting.”
Presented by Governing Body member Mark Sanderson (20 min 02 s; media id docid-1112024005). Also announces: follow-up meeting 'after a few months'; visits to those removed long ago; two elders to meet a baptised minor and parents instead of a committee; members may invite a removed person to a meeting; 'we don’t socialize with those who are removed'; 1 Cor. 5:13 'remove' terminology; sisters may wear slacks.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 2024 Governing Body Update #2
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.jw.org page opened (published 15 March 2024) and the organisation's own English subtitle file (https://cfp2.jw-cdn.org/a/ceb7d7/1/o/1112024005_E_cnt_1.vtt, from the jw.org mediator API record docid-1112024005_E_1_VIDEO) read in full; quotations are from that subtitle text.
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
15. September 1981 · pp.26-31 · par. 11, 13, 18-19, 22-26 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum.”
Distinguishes relatives in the household (family ties remain, 'spiritual ties have been completely severed'; a disfellowshipped minor is still cared for and disciplined but parents 'would not conduct a Bible study directly with the child') from relatives outside it ('limited need to care for necessary family matters'); discusses weddings, gatherings and funerals.
15. August 2013 · p.8 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“parents may even study the Bible with a disfellowshipped minor who continues to live with them ... it would seem reasonable that a disfellowshipped minor could also quietly sit with his parents.”
Confirms that disfellowshipped minors at home may be studied with and may sit with parents; for adult children not at home, sitting beside relatives is 'far different' from relatives who 'needlessly seek out his company'. Cites w81 9/15 pp. 29-30 and w88 11/15 pp. 19-20.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for The Watchtower (Study Edition), Questions From Readers: Would it be appropriate for Christian parents to sit with a disfellowshipped child at congregation meetings?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Raw WOL HTML fetched; wording and page marker 8 confirmed.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-w-2013-0815-qfr-seating
Die Wiederaufnahme setzt ein schriftliches Gesuch voraus, über das ein Wiederaufnahmekomitee der ursprünglichen Versammlung befindet, nachdem 'clear evidence of repentance' (klare Beweise der Reue) über 'many months, a year, or even longer, depending on the circumstances' (viele Monate, ein Jahr oder je nach den Umständen sogar länger) vorliegen (2019); seit März 2024 sollen die Ältesten 'after a few months' (nach einigen Monaten) ein weiteres Gespräch anbieten, auch diejenigen aufsuchen, die 'perhaps many years ago' (vielleicht vor vielen Jahren) entfernt wurden, und können vor der Wiederaufnahme ein Bibelstudium einrichten; ihnen wird gesagt, eine reumütige Person 'can be reinstated without delay' (könne ohne Verzug wieder aufgenommen werden), wobei Fälle von Kindesmissbrauch, Abtrünnigkeit oder der Zerstörung einer Ehe 'especially careful' (besonders sorgfältig) zu behandeln sind. Source: Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), 2019Source: jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 15. März 2024Source: The Watchtower (Study Edition), August 2024Source: The Watchtower, 15. April 1988
2019 · pp.141-156 · par. 24-40 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This will alert faithful ones in the congregation to stop associating with that person.—1 Cor. 5:11.”
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), Chapter 14, Maintaining the Peace and Cleanness of the Congregation
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Raw WOL HTML fetched; wording and page markers 141-156 confirmed; publishers' page (doc 1102014949) opened for edition data. Still uses 'disfellowshipped' as at access date.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-od-2019-organized-ch14
15. März 2024 · Mark Sanderson (Governing Body) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Under our current arrangement, we don’t say a greeting to individuals who’ve been removed from the congregation. However, the Governing Body has decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide whether to give a simple greeting and welcome a disfellowshipped individual who attends a congregation meeting.”
Presented by Governing Body member Mark Sanderson (20 min 02 s; media id docid-1112024005). Also announces: follow-up meeting 'after a few months'; visits to those removed long ago; two elders to meet a baptised minor and parents instead of a committee; members may invite a removed person to a meeting; 'we don’t socialize with those who are removed'; 1 Cor. 5:13 'remove' terminology; sisters may wear slacks.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 2024 Governing Body Update #2
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.jw.org page opened (published 15 March 2024) and the organisation's own English subtitle file (https://cfp2.jw-cdn.org/a/ceb7d7/1/o/1112024005_E_cnt_1.vtt, from the jw.org mediator API record docid-1112024005_E_1_VIDEO) read in full; quotations are from that subtitle text.
August 2024 · pp.26-31 · par. 3-6, 10-15; footnote b; box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.”
Footnote b retires 'disfellowshipped' for 'removed from the congregation'; par. 4 keeps the announcement 'no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; par. 13 keeps 'stop keeping company ... not even eating'; par. 15 and the box restrict 2 John 9-11 to 'apostates and others who actively promote wrong conduct'; par. 6, 10-12 on follow-up visits and reinstatement. No revised guidance on relatives outside the household.
15. April 1988 · pp.26-31 · par. 3, 13-14, 17, 20, 23; footnote a · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”
Household relatives: 'normal family affections and dealings can continue' (par. 13). Reports the outcome of Paul v. Watchtower and concludes a shunned person 'cannot recover damages ... the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions' (par. 20). Footnote a: 2 John 11 'could well mean not to say even "hello" to such ones'.
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: FAQ: 'If one of Jehovah's Witnesses has slowed down or stopped in his worship, we reach out to him' — wenn einer von Jehovas Zeugen in seiner Anbetung nachgelassen oder aufgehört habe, bemühe man sich um ihn.
2019 · pp.141-156 · par. 24-40 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This will alert faithful ones in the congregation to stop associating with that person.—1 Cor. 5:11.”
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), Chapter 14, Maintaining the Peace and Cleanness of the Congregation
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Raw WOL HTML fetched; wording and page markers 141-156 confirmed; publishers' page (doc 1102014949) opened for edition data. Still uses 'disfellowshipped' as at access date.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-od-2019-organized-ch14
15. September 1981 · pp.20-26 · par. 12-16, 21-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
Par. 21-23 (pp. 24-25) apply 2 John 9-11 to expelled persons; par. 13-16 create the category of disassociation (by statement or by joining an organisation contrary to the Bible) and direct that such persons be 'viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped'; par. 27 says a member who will not cease fellowship with an expelled person 'must be removed from the congregation'.
Oktober 2016 · pp.13, 70-72 · section 7.7; endnotes 618-636 · Commonwealth of Australia (ISBN 978-1-925289-89-3, CC BY 3.0 AU)
“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”
Also: 'Even family members are instructed not to associate with a disfellowshipped or disassociated relative unless the association is unavoidable'; 'the practice of shunning is an inextricable component of the institutional response to child sexual abuse'; the organisation's submission that shunning was outside the terms of reference was rejected; Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson's evidence (14 Aug 2015) that leaving can be 'personally devastating because [a person] can lose their whole social network and their families'; p. 13 lists 'the organisation has a policy and practice of shunning those who wish to leave the organisation' among problematic policies.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia), Report of Case Study No. 29: The response of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse, Section 7.7 Shunning; summary of problematic policies (p. 13)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Report PDF (110 pp.) downloaded from the New Zealand inquiry's mirror and text-extracted; wording and page numbers confirmed. Official host (childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au) blocked in this environment.
Herkunft des Scans.Mirror hosted by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (New Zealand); Commonwealth of Australia, CC BY 3.0 AU.
Notes.Official PDF (blocked here): https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-rc-au-2016-1000-case-study-29-report
April 2021 · ch. 12 par. 17, 44-46; ch. 16 par. 27-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (published as inquiry evidence by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, New Zealand)
“If a publisher in the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. ... He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision.”
Par. 17(1): wilful association with disfellowshipped or disassociated non-relatives 'would warrant judicial action'; par. 44-46 on persons inactive for many years; ch. 16 par. 29-31: announcement 'It should read as follows: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."', takes effect at the announcement, S-77 form sent to the Service Department.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for “Shepherd the Flock of God”—1 Peter 5:2 (ks), April 2021 revision, chapters 12, 14, 16 and 22, as produced to the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (document JHV0000012), Chapter 12 par. 17(1) and 44-46; Chapter 16 par. 27-31
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.PDF (35 pages) downloaded from the inquiry's evidence library and text-extracted; wording confirmed. Cited as a public-inquiry exhibit, not from any leaked copy. The Norwegian Supreme Court quotes the identical par. 17 text from the 2019 edition (para 127).
Herkunft des Scans.Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (New Zealand) evidence library; copyright Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
Das Buch Organisiert, Jehovas Willen zu tun von 2019 definiert den Rückzug entweder als Erklärung, dass jemand nicht länger als Zeuge Jehovas bekannt sein möchte, oder als Aufgabe seiner Stellung 'by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to Bible teachings' (durch sein Handeln, etwa indem er Teil einer weltlichen Organisation wird, deren Ziele biblischen Lehren zuwiderlaufen) — unter Anführung von Jesaja 2:4 und Offenbarung 19:17-21. Das Buch nennt den Militärdienst nicht, und Fragen von Lesern von 1999 behandelt das Wählen als Sache des persönlichen Gewissens; damit wird weder 'der Eintritt ins Militär' noch 'das Wählen' im derzeit veröffentlichten Text als Handlung genannt, die automatisch einem Rückzug gleichkommt. Source: Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), 2019Source: The Watchtower, 1. November 1999Source: The Watchtower, 15. September 1981
2019 · pp.141-156 · par. 24-40 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This will alert faithful ones in the congregation to stop associating with that person.—1 Cor. 5:11.”
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), Chapter 14, Maintaining the Peace and Cleanness of the Congregation
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Raw WOL HTML fetched; wording and page markers 141-156 confirmed; publishers' page (doc 1102014949) opened for edition data. Still uses 'disfellowshipped' as at access date.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-od-2019-organized-ch14
1. November 1999 · pp.28-29 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience ... What he does in the polling booth is between him and his Creator.”
Current published position: voting is a matter of individual conscience, not a disassociating act. Relevant to the claim sometimes made that voting leads to disassociation.
15. September 1981 · pp.20-26 · par. 12-16, 21-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
Par. 21-23 (pp. 24-25) apply 2 John 9-11 to expelled persons; par. 13-16 create the category of disassociation (by statement or by joining an organisation contrary to the Bible) and direct that such persons be 'viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped'; par. 27 says a member who will not cease fellowship with an expelled person 'must be removed from the congregation'.
15. April 2015 · pp.29-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“All in the congregation can show principled love by avoiding contact and conversation with the disfellowshipped person. (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 John 10, 11)”
Presents disfellowshipping as protection for the congregation and discipline for the wrongdoer; 'Julian' says of his disfellowshipped son, 'his lifestyle had put up a barrier between us'; the son returned 'after some ten years'.
15. Juli 1995 · pp.25-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Ever since the Christian congregation came into existence 19 centuries ago, true Christians have put up a hard fight to protect it from spiritual and moral uncleanness.”
Organisation's rationale article; opened for the 'loving provision' framing used from the 1990s onward.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for The Watchtower, Disfellowshipping—A Loving Provision?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Re-opened by the independent source auditor on 19 September 2026: the online library's reference for document 1995526 is w95 7/15 pp. 25-27, so the issue is 15 July 1995 (an earlier record inferred 15 August from the document numbering); page markers 25-27 and wording confirmed.
Notes.Issue date corrected from 15 August to 15 July 1995 on 19 September 2026.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-w-1995-0715-loving-provision
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Awake!, The Bible’s Viewpoint: Why Disfellowshipping Is a Loving Arrangement
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Re-opened by the independent source auditor on 19 September 2026: the online library's reference g96 9/8 pp. 26-27 confirms the 8 September 1996 issue; page markers and wording confirmed.
Notes.Issue date confirmed 19 September 2026.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-g-1996-0908-loving-arrangement
2017 · pp.241 (Endnote 8); ch. 3 pp. 39-40 · Endnote 8; ch. 3 pars. 19-20 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“When someone is disfellowshipped, we have no more dealings with that person and we stop talking to him. (1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 John 9-11)”
Ch. 3 par. 19: 'This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.' The Norwegian Supreme Court treated this 2017/2018 book as the current doctrinal statement (para 39-40). Endnotes doc: wol 1102017578.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for How to Remain in God’s Love (lvs), Chapter 3, Choose Friends Who Love God (par. 19-20) and Endnote 8, Disfellowshipping
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.The quoted sentence is Endnote 8 of the book (online library document 1102017578, under page marker 241, the page the elders’ handbook tells elders to review); chapter 3 (document 1102017562) pars. 19-20 confirmed separately. Corrected by the independent source auditor on 19 September 2026.
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”
Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).
Notes.Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation
Erklärung der Organisation · 18. September 2026Geprüft
Der derzeitige öffentliche Standpunkt der Organisation lautet, dass entfernte Personen 'with respect' (mit Respekt) behandelt werden, dass sie 'welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted' sind (bei den Zusammenkünften willkommen sind, wo sie gegrüßt werden dürfen), dass sie die Ältesten um Hilfe bitten können und dass Ehepartner und minderjährige Kinder einer entfernten Person im selben Haus 'normal family affections and dealings' (die normale familiäre Zuneigung und den normalen Umgang) beibehalten; die FAQ geht auf Verwandte, die anderswo leben, nicht ein und wendet die Aussage über den Gruß aus 2. Johannes nur auf diejenigen an, die 'actively try to undermine' (aktiv zu untergraben versuchen) die Versammlung. Source: jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, 18. September 2026Source: Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, 29. April 2026
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”
Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).
Notes.Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”
Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).
Notes.Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
22. März 2014 · watchtowerinvestigated.wordpress.com
“Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?”
Attests the earlier title of the jw.org shunning FAQ. Archive hosts (web.archive.org, archive.ph) are blocked in this environment, so the earlier page could not be opened.
In Paul v. Watchtower (819 F.2d 875, 9th Cir. 1987) entschied das Gericht, die Meidung sei 'a part of the faith' (ein Teil des Glaubens) und 'constitutionally protected' (verfassungsrechtlich geschützt), erkannte dabei an, dass 'the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial' (die von Janice Paul erlittenen Schäden real und nicht unerheblich sind), und bezeichnete sie als 'a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference' (einen Preis, der für den Schutz des Rechts auf religiöse Andersartigkeit gut angelegt ist); der Supreme Court lehnte eine Überprüfung ab; Der Wachtturm vom 15. April 1988 stellte den Fall so dar, dass er bestätige, eine gemiedene Person 'cannot recover damages' (könne keinen Schadenersatz erlangen). Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987), No. 85-4012, 10. Juni 1987Source: The Watchtower, 15. April 1988
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: w88 4/15, Abs. 20: 'the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions' — die Person empfinde einen Verlust, den sie durch ihr eigenes Handeln herbeigeführt habe.
10. Juni 1987 · pp.819 F.2d 875 · paras 1, 11-12, 23, 36-37 (as numbered in the Public.Resource.Org text) · United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
“Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion. ... The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by Paul as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.”
Facts: Paul left in 1975 after her parents were disfellowshipped; after the 1981 change, former friends 'told Paul that she was to be treated as if she had been disfellowshiped and that they could not speak with her'. Holding: 'Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah’s Witness, we find that the "free exercise" provision ... precludes the plaintiff from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning.' Argued 7 March 1986. Certiorari denied, 484 U.S. 926 (2 Nov 1987) (CourtListener search record opened).
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987), No. 85-4012, Opinion by Reinhardt, Circuit Judge (Wright, Tang, Reinhardt)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Full opinion text opened on law.resource.org (Public.Resource.Org copy of the Federal Reporter); wording confirmed. Justia, FindLaw and CourtListener pages were blocked or empty.
Herkunft des Scans.Public.Resource.Org (public-domain court opinion).
15. April 1988 · pp.26-31 · par. 3, 13-14, 17, 20, 23; footnote a · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”
Household relatives: 'normal family affections and dealings can continue' (par. 13). Reports the outcome of Paul v. Watchtower and concludes a shunned person 'cannot recover damages ... the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions' (par. 20). Footnote a: 2 John 11 'could well mean not to say even "hello" to such ones'.
“courts can only review the decisions of public decision-makers and that private decision-makers don’t have to follow fair procedures unless an enforceable legal right is at stake”
Randy Wall, disfellowshipped in 2014, said the decision harmed his real-estate business because Witness clients avoided him; the Court held there is no free-standing right to judicial review of a religious organisation's membership decision and that disagreements about religious principles are not for the courts.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Canada, Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall, 2018 SCC 26, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 750, Case in Brief (official summary) and judgment (Rowe J. for a unanimous Court)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official SCC 'Case in Brief' page opened; citation, date, facts and holding confirmed. Full reasons (CanLII/Lexum) blocked in this environment, so paragraph numbers are not given.
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Die Organisation machte geltend, die Meidung liege 'außerhalb des Untersuchungsauftrags und hat keine unmittelbare Relevanz', was die Kommission zurückwies.
Oktober 2016 · pp.13, 70-72 · section 7.7; endnotes 618-636 · Commonwealth of Australia (ISBN 978-1-925289-89-3, CC BY 3.0 AU)
“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”
Also: 'Even family members are instructed not to associate with a disfellowshipped or disassociated relative unless the association is unavoidable'; 'the practice of shunning is an inextricable component of the institutional response to child sexual abuse'; the organisation's submission that shunning was outside the terms of reference was rejected; Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson's evidence (14 Aug 2015) that leaving can be 'personally devastating because [a person] can lose their whole social network and their families'; p. 13 lists 'the organisation has a policy and practice of shunning those who wish to leave the organisation' among problematic policies.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia), Report of Case Study No. 29: The response of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse, Section 7.7 Shunning; summary of problematic policies (p. 13)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Report PDF (110 pp.) downloaded from the New Zealand inquiry's mirror and text-extracted; wording and page numbers confirmed. Official host (childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au) blocked in this environment.
Herkunft des Scans.Mirror hosted by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (New Zealand); Commonwealth of Australia, CC BY 3.0 AU.
Notes.Official PDF (blocked here): https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-rc-au-2016-1000-case-study-29-report
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Eine Stellungnahme von jw.org zum belgischen Fall wurde nicht gefunden; die FAQ führt zur Untermauerung andere Gerichte an.
“De vzw Christelijke Gemeente van Jehovah’s Getuigen werd veroordeeld tot een geldboete van 96.000 euro voor het aanzetten tot discriminatie en haat tegen ex-leden.”
Charges under art. 22, 1°-4° of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Act (incitement to discrimination and to hatred/violence against individuals and a group); Unia and about fifteen former members were civil parties; complaint lodged 2015 by a former member. Unia's own summary (12 Jan 2024 update, https://www.unia.be/nl/actua/gelovigen-antidiscriminatiewet) also records the 2022 acquittal and the Cassation ruling.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Unia (Belgian Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities) case-law database: Correctionele rechtbank Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent, 16 maart 2021, vzw Christelijke Gemeente van Jehovah’s Getuigen — conviction for incitement to discrimination and hatred
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Unia case page and Unia news update opened; date, charges, fine and parties confirmed. The judgment text itself was not opened.
“no indication that the avoidance policy leads to generalized social isolation”
The Court of Appeal held that announcing a member's name at meetings 'can on its own not incite discrimination', that the avoidance policy does not 'literally call for discrimination ... nor literally for hate or violence', and that a religion 'may issue guidelines that strongly discourage or deem friendships sinful' provided they do not incite unlawful conduct.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Unia case-law database: Hof van beroep Gent, 7 juni 2022, Acquittal of vzw Christelijke Gemeente van Jehovah’s Getuigen on appeal
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Unia case page opened (fetch tool rendered the Dutch summary in English); outcome and date confirmed; judgment text not opened. Downgraded to supported after review: the page was opened but the wording or date recorded here was tool-summarised, translated or inferred rather than confirmed by eye; re-read before upgrading.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-unia-2022-0607-ghent-court-of-appeal
“the exclusion policy does not incite breaking of bonds between parents and children or between spouses”
The Court of Cassation upheld the 2022 acquittal; it found the policy 'strongly discourages and designates as sinful' contact with ex-members but that members 'have free will to leave'.
16. März 2021 · Jeroen Desmecht; Hanne Decré · VRT (Belgian public broadcaster)
“De religieuze regels staan in onze maatschappij niet boven de wet.”
Reports the Ghent criminal court conviction; explains that the base fine of €12,000 is multiplied by eight (statutory 'opdeciemen') giving €96,000; names complainant Patrick Haeck (35-year member, expelled 2010) and Unia with fifteen ex-members as civil parties.
“The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning policy cuts to the very core of relationships, and the victims suffer both physical and psychological consequences”
English-language report of the same judgment giving the €12,000 base figure (before the statutory multiplier); quotes civil-party lawyers and Patrick Haeck.
Januar 2024 · pp.79-105 · Massimo Introvigne · CESNUR
““Shunning” does not apply to cohabiting relatives.”
Essay by a sociologist who defends the practice; useful only for its litigation chronology (Ghent 16 March 2021 conviction; 7 June 2022 reversal; Court of Cassation 19 December 2023).
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: jw.org (28. März 2024) bezeichnete das Urteil als verfassungswidrig und kündigte Berufung an.
4. März 2024 · sections 3.1, 3.3 (as extracted) · Oslo tingrett (published on Lovdata)
“For døpte mindreårige i den alderen vil det være tilnærmet umulig å utøve retten til fri utmelding”
Judge Ole Kristen Øverberg acquitted the State and ordered the organisation to pay costs of NOK 1,140,505, holding that the exclusion practice infringed baptised minors' right of free withdrawal and amounted to 'psykisk vold' (psychological violence); the judgment quoted the lv appendix ('Lojale kristne familiemedlemmer leter ikke etter unnskyldninger for å ha kontakt ...').
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), judgment TOSL-2022-186588 / TOSL-2023-23178, Jehovas vitner v. Staten v/Barne- og familiedepartementet
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Lovdata page opened via the fetch tool, which returned the case numbers, date, judge, outcome, costs and extracted Norwegian passages; the full judgment text was not read line by line, so the extracted quotations are reported as the summary gives them, and the claim they support is labelled supported. Downgraded to supported after review: the page was opened but the wording or date recorded here was tool-summarised, translated or inferred rather than confirmed by eye; re-read before upgrading.
28. März 2024 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The position of the State now remains that it will continue to deny legal recognition to Jehovah’s Witnesses in the country of Norway unless we change our practices regarding the removal of unrepentant wrongdoers from the congregation.”
Organisation's response to the Oslo District Court judgment of 4 March 2024; notes loss of grants and of authority to officiate weddings.
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: jw.org: 'Jehovah's Witnesses have been fully vindicated' — Jehovas Zeugen seien vollständig rehabilitiert worden.
“The State has not demonstrated in concrete terms whether, and to what extent, baptised minor members of Jehovah’s Witnesses actually experience pressure not to commit norm violations or not to withdraw, out of fear of being subjected to a disfellowshipping process ... and of losing relationships with family and friends within the religious community.”
Unanimous reversal of the District Court; findings of fact quoted in the Supreme Court judgment (para 102). The organisation was awarded costs (NOK 8.5 million per jw.org).
No online copy located.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), judgment of 14 March 2025, Jehovas vitner v. Staten v/Barne- og familiedepartementet
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Judgment not opened and case number not obtained; outcome and date confirmed by the Supreme Court judgment (HR-2026-1009-A, opened), jw.org release (opened) and rett24 (opened). Quotation is the Supreme Court's English rendering of the Court of Appeal's finding.
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
27. März 2025 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Jehovah’s Witnesses have been fully vindicated in that the decisions to deny grants and registration are invalid.”
Reports the Borgarting Court of Appeal decision of 14 March 2025 and costs of NOK 8,500,000; says limiting contact with removed members 'is not a violation of his rights' and, for minors, 'does not constitute psychological violence' (as quoted by jw.org).
Reports that the Borgarting Court of Appeal found it not shown ('ikke sannsynliggjort') that the practice of social distancing toward members who leave violates the right to exit, nor that the practice toward minors constitutes psychological violence or negative social control.
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: jw.org: Das Urteil 'protects several fundamental human rights... including freedom of religion and personal autonomy' — es schütze mehrere grundlegende Menschenrechte, darunter die Religionsfreiheit und die persönliche Autonomie.
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
8. Mai 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The decision protects several fundamental human rights for all people in Norway, including freedom of religion and personal autonomy.”
Statement by Jørgen Pedersen (Scandinavia Branch Committee). A companion piece dated 30 April 2026 (jw.org/en/global-communications/country/norway/Norways-Supreme-Court-Rules-to-Protect-Citizens-Right-to-Believe/) reports costs of about NOK 11,864,000 and describes the practice as 'the removal of unrepentant wrongdoers from the congregation'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for jw.org Newsroom, Norwegian Supreme Court Issues Significant Ruling in Favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Both pages opened; dates and wording confirmed. jw.org gives the decision date as 30 April 2026; the judgment itself is dated 29 April 2026.
Notes.Date discrepancy (29 vs 30 April) noted; the judgment PDF controls.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-jworg-2026-0508-norway-supreme-court-release
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Religion Clause (law blog by Prof. Howard M. Friedman), Norway’s Supreme Court Upholds Jehovah’s Witnesses State Registration and Funding
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Page opened; used only to locate the official judgment.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-religionclause-2026-0507-norway-supreme-court
Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.
Die Position der Organisation oder ihre spätere Erklärung: Die FAQ verweist auf die Auffassung des früheren EGMR-Richters Pinto de Albuquerque, wonach Gerichte die Praxis für rechtmäßig befunden hätten.
10. Juni 2010 · paras 109-113 · European Court of Human Rights
“as long as self-dedication to religious matters is the product of the believer’s independent and free decision and however unhappy his or her family members may be about that decision, the ensuing estrangement cannot be taken to mean that the religion caused the break-up in the family.”
Para 110: 'The domestic courts did not give examples of any forceful or threatening action on the part of the applicant community calculated to break the families of its members apart.' The passage concerns complaints by non-Witness relatives of converts, not the shunning of ex-members; the Norwegian Supreme Court (2026, para 110) said the ECtHR had not, to its knowledge, ruled on shunning of former members.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, Judgment (First Section), paras 109-113
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.HUDOC document body opened via the HUDOC conversion endpoint (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/html/body?library=ECHR&id=001-99221); paragraphs 109-113 read verbatim.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-echr-2010-0610-jw-moscow-v-russia
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf
Herkunft des Scans.Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
Was die Forschung zeigt und wo ihre Grenzen liegen
Begutachtete Studien über ehemalige Zeugen Jehovas sind klein oder beruhen auf Selbstauswahl; keine misst die Häufigkeit unter kontrollierten Bedingungen, ein ursächlicher Zusammenhang lässt sich daraus also nicht ableiten. Sie berichten durchgängig von Zusammenhängen zwischen Meidung und schlechter psychischer Gesundheit, einschließlich Suizidgedanken, und zugleich von Widerstandskraft im Lauf der Zeit. Die hier verwendete Formulierung lautet „steht in Zusammenhang mit“, nicht „verursacht“.
Eine 2021 veröffentlichte, von Fachkollegen begutachtete Interviewstudie mit sechs ehemaligen Zeugen Jehovas (Ransom, Monk & Heim, Journal of Religion and Health) berichtete, die Ausgrenzung nach dem Austritt 'can be associated with diminished mental health' (könne mit einer verminderten psychischen Gesundheit einhergehen), die Teilnehmer verglichen den Verlust von Familie und Freunden mit der Trauer um Lebende, ein Teilnehmer berichtete von zwei Suizidversuchen und ein weiterer von selbstzerstörerischem Verhalten, und einer schilderte den Suizid eines Sohnes, nachdem dieser ausgeschlossen worden war. Source: Journal of Religion and Health, 61(3): 2458-2480 (online 19 Jan 2021; issue June 2022), 19. Januar 2021
Belege anzeigen (1 Quelle)
Von Fachleuten begutachtet / wissenschaftlichGeprüft
19. Januar 2021 · pp.2458-2480 · Abstract; Results · Heather J. Ransom; Rebecca L. Monk; Derek Heim · Springer (open access, CC BY)
“Narratives suggest that experiences of ostracism following religious exit can be associated with diminished mental health, while having a sense of agency and establishing new (online) social connections may help mitigate adverse consequences.”
Six former JWs in the UK (aged 25 to 60s; disfellowshipped or disassociated), semi-structured interviews analysed with interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results: 'the sudden loss of contact with loved [ones] was akin to grieving their living friends and family'; one participant reported two suicide attempts, another self-destructive behaviour, and a third described her son’s suicide after he was disfellowshipped and one a son's suicide after disfellowshipping; 'the indication is that being disfellowshipped may potentially have serious implications to physical and mental health'.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Journal of Religion and Health, 61(3): 2458-2480 (online 19 Jan 2021; issue June 2022), Grieving the Living: The Social Death of Former Jehovah’s Witnesses
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Open-access PDF (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek copy, https://d-nb.info/1230971017/34) downloaded and read; citation verified against Crossref and Semantic Scholar; Edge Hill repository record opened.
Unabhängige Feststellung · 31. Dezember 2022Geprüft
Eine Interviewstudie von 2023 mit zehn ehemaligen Zeugen Jehovas (Luther, Pastoral Psychology) kam zu dem Schluss, dass die Meidung 'has a long-term, detrimental effect on mental health, job possibilities, and life satisfaction' (sich langfristig nachteilig auf die psychische Gesundheit, die beruflichen Möglichkeiten und die Lebenszufriedenheit auswirkt), wobei Einsamkeit, Kontrollverlust und Wertlosigkeitsgefühle nach dem Austritt häufig waren. Source: Pastoral Psychology, 72(1): 105-120 (online 31 Dec 2022), 31. Dezember 2022
Belege anzeigen (1 Quelle)
Von Fachleuten begutachtet / wissenschaftlichGeprüft
“Results suggest shunning has a long-term, detrimental effect on mental health, job possibilities, and life satisfaction. ... Feelings of loneliness, loss of control, and worthlessness are also common after leaving.”
Ten former JWs (USA, aged 20-44) interviewed; interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Pastoral Psychology, 72(1): 105-120 (online 31 Dec 2022), What Happens to Those Who Exit Jehovah’s Witnesses: An Investigation of the Impact of Shunning
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.PubMed Central full text (PMC9803876) opened; abstract confirmed verbatim; citation verified against Crossref.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-luther-2023-what-happens-exit
Eine Online-Umfrage von 2023 unter 424 ehemaligen Zeugen Jehovas in Österreich, Deutschland und der Schweiz (Thoma et al., Mental Health, Religion & Culture) berichtete, dass ein Drittel Suizidgedanken hatte und 10 % einen Suizidversuch unternommen hatten, bei klinisch bedeutsamen Symptomen und geringer Lebensqualität, besonders bei Frauen und bei denjenigen, die wegen Missbrauchs ausgetreten waren. Source: Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 26(7): 644-662, 9. August 2023
Belege anzeigen (1 Quelle)
Von Fachleuten begutachtet / wissenschaftlichGestützt
9. August 2023 · pp.644-662 · Abstract · Myriam V. Thoma; Andreas Goreis; Shauna L. Rohner; Urs M. Nater; Eva Heim; Jan Höltge · Taylor & Francis (open access, CC BY)
“This study assessed a sample of former Jehovah’s Witnesses (N = 424 ... ). Most participants (66%) were born into this faith community. Half the sample left voluntarily, 21% were expelled ... One third reported suicidal thoughts; 10% had attempted suicide.”
Online survey; self-selected sample; no control group. Women and survivors of child maltreatment identified as particularly vulnerable sub-groups.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 26(7): 644-662, Characteristics of health and well-being in former Jehovah’s Witnesses in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Publisher page returned HTTP 403; abstract and bibliographic data taken from the Semantic Scholar API record and verified against Crossref (two independent indexes). Original not opened.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-thoma-2023-health-former-jws
Eine britische Studie von 2026 mit 21 offiziell gemiedenen ehemaligen Zeugen Jehovas (Grendele, Bapir-Tardy & Flax, Pastoral Psychology) kam zu dem Ergebnis, die Meidung 'may significantly impact individuals' physical and emotional well-being' (könne das körperliche und emotionale Wohlbefinden der Betroffenen erheblich beeinträchtigen), dass die meisten Teilnehmer jedoch Widerstandskraft und psychisches Wachstum durch anpassungsfähige Bewältigungsstrategien zeigten. Source: Pastoral Psychology (online 4 June 2026), 4. Juni 2026
Belege anzeigen (1 Quelle)
Von Fachleuten begutachtet / wissenschaftlichGeprüft
4. Juni 2026 · Abstract · Windy A. Grendele; Savin Bapir-Tardy; Maya Flax · Springer (open access, CC BY)
“Twenty-one former Jehovah’s Witnesses who were officially shunned were interviewed online or by phone, and the data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. ... the majority of participants demonstrated resilience and psychological growth.”
Received 19 Feb 2026, accepted 3 May 2026. Shunning 'may significantly impact individuals’ physical and emotional well-being'; some participants initially adopted maladaptive coping.
Hinweis zu Herkunft und Überprüfung for Pastoral Psychology (online 4 June 2026), Coping After Shunning: Experiences of Former Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United Kingdom
Hinweis zur Vertrauensangabe.Open-access PDF downloaded from link.springer.com and read; citation verified against Crossref.
Abgerufen. 19. September 2026 · Quellenkennung.src-grendele-2026-coping-after-shunning
15. November 1952 · pp.703-704 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person—no, there would be none of that! ... Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.”
Veröffentlichte RichtliniePersönliche Entscheidung
A ‘balanced viewpoint’: family decides about relatives
It was ‘not right to treat such ones in an inhumane way’; contact with disfellowshipped relatives outside the home is left to the family. Source: The Watchtower, 1. August 1974
Belege öffnen A ‘balanced viewpoint’: family decides about relatives
1. August 1974 · pp.466-473 · par. 5, 9, 17-23 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them.”
15. September 1981 · pp.20-26 · par. 12-16, 21-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
15. September 1981 · pp.26-31 · par. 11, 13, 18-19, 22-26 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum.”
15. Juli 1985 · pp.30-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application. ... John was saying that they ought not even greet such an individual with khaiʹro, a common “good-day.””
10. Juni 1987 · pp.819 F.2d 875 · paras 1, 11-12, 23, 36-37 (as numbered in the Public.Resource.Org text) · United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
“Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion. ... The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by Paul as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.”
15. April 1988 · pp.26-31 · par. 3, 13-14, 17, 20, 23; footnote a · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”
2008 · pp.207-209 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home.”
15. Januar 2013 · pp.12-16 · par. 16-20 (quote at par. 19, p. 16) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else—including the family bond. ... Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail. (1 Cor. 5:11)”
Oktober 2017 · pp.12-16 · par. 17-20 (quote at par. 19) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.”
15. Juli 1995 · pp.25-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Ever since the Christian congregation came into existence 19 centuries ago, true Christians have put up a hard fight to protect it from spiritual and moral uncleanness.”
September 2017 · p.8 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Watch the video Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments—Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers, and then answer the following questions: What situation tested the loyalty of Sonja’s parents? What helped them to remain loyal? How did their loyalty to Jehovah benefit Sonja?”
Oktober 2016 · pp.13, 70-72 · section 7.7; endnotes 618-636 · Commonwealth of Australia (ISBN 978-1-925289-89-3, CC BY 3.0 AU)
“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”
“courts can only review the decisions of public decision-makers and that private decision-makers don’t have to follow fair procedures unless an enforceable legal right is at stake”
“De vzw Christelijke Gemeente van Jehovah’s Getuigen werd veroordeeld tot een geldboete van 96.000 euro voor het aanzetten tot discriminatie en haat tegen ex-leden.”
A ‘simple greeting’ at meetings becomes a conscience matter
Publishers may greet and welcome a removed person at a meeting and invite them to meetings; elders to follow up after ‘a few months’. Socialising and eating together remain excluded. Source: jw.org (Governing Body Update video), 15. März 2024
Belege öffnen A ‘simple greeting’ at meetings becomes a conscience matter
15. März 2024 · Mark Sanderson (Governing Body) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Under our current arrangement, we don’t say a greeting to individuals who’ve been removed from the congregation. However, the Governing Body has decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide whether to give a simple greeting and welcome a disfellowshipped individual who attends a congregation meeting.”
August 2024 · pp.26-31 · par. 3-6, 10-15; footnote b; box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.”
August 2024 · pp.20-25 · par. 17-18 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“What about baptized minors—those under 18 years of age—who engage in serious wrongdoing? The body of elders will arrange for two elders to meet with the minor and his Christian parents. ... However, what if a baptized minor unrepentantly persists in a wrong course? In that case, a committee of elders will meet with him along with his Christian parents.”
“The State has not demonstrated in concrete terms whether, and to what extent, baptised minor members of Jehovah’s Witnesses actually experience pressure not to commit norm violations or not to withdraw, out of fear of being subjected to a disfellowshipping process ... and of losing relationships with family and friends within the religious community.”
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
The organisation’s framing. Note that disassociation by letter is treated identically, so a person who leaves for reasons of conscience receives the same treatment as an unrepentant wrongdoer.Source: Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (od), 2019
They concern greetings and invitations at meetings, follow-up visits and minors. The ‘not even eating’ rule, the announcement and the outside-household guidance are unchanged.Source: The Watchtower (Study Edition), August 2024
Wenn Sie über einen Austritt nachdenken
Die obigen Regeln sind der Grund, warum der Weg zählt: Ein Brief, mit dem sich jemand von der Versammlung zurückzieht, wird wie eine Entfernung aus der Versammlung behandelt, ein stilles Zurücktreten dagegen nicht. Siehe sicher austreten und Hilfe und Unterstützung. Nichts auf dieser Website ist ein Rat für Ihre Lage.
Nicht überprüft, nicht verwendet
Der Inhalt des Kongressvideos „Sonja“ von 2016 über seinen offiziellen Titel hinaus; eine berichtete Entscheidung eines europäischen Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2023 zu einer norwegischen Beschwerde; der Wortlaut des Urteils des Borgarting Court of Appeal (seine Feststellungen werden aus dem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs zitiert); und jede Ausgabe des Ältestenhandbuchs nach 2024. Das Handbuch wird nur aus den Kapiteln zitiert, die der New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry und den norwegischen Gerichten vorgelegt wurden, niemals aus geleakten Exemplaren.
Auf dieser Seite zitierte Quellen
Show all 37 sources, in date order
Each opens a full record with links, provenance and a confidence note.
15. November 1952 · pp.703-704 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person—no, there would be none of that! ... Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.”
1. August 1974 · pp.466-473 · par. 5, 9, 17-23 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them.”
15. September 1981 · pp.20-26 · par. 12-16, 21-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
15. September 1981 · pp.26-31 · par. 11, 13, 18-19, 22-26 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum.”
15. Juli 1985 · pp.30-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application. ... John was saying that they ought not even greet such an individual with khaiʹro, a common “good-day.””
10. Juni 1987 · pp.819 F.2d 875 · paras 1, 11-12, 23, 36-37 (as numbered in the Public.Resource.Org text) · United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
“Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion. ... The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by Paul as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.”
15. April 1988 · pp.26-31 · par. 3, 13-14, 17, 20, 23; footnote a · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”
15. Juli 1995 · pp.25-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Ever since the Christian congregation came into existence 19 centuries ago, true Christians have put up a hard fight to protect it from spiritual and moral uncleanness.”
1. November 1999 · pp.28-29 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience ... What he does in the polling booth is between him and his Creator.”
2008 · pp.207-209 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home.”
10. Juni 2010 · paras 109-113 · European Court of Human Rights
“as long as self-dedication to religious matters is the product of the believer’s independent and free decision and however unhappy his or her family members may be about that decision, the ensuing estrangement cannot be taken to mean that the religion caused the break-up in the family.”
15. Januar 2013 · pp.12-16 · par. 16-20 (quote at par. 19, p. 16) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else—including the family bond. ... Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail. (1 Cor. 5:11)”
15. August 2013 · p.8 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“parents may even study the Bible with a disfellowshipped minor who continues to live with them ... it would seem reasonable that a disfellowshipped minor could also quietly sit with his parents.”
Oktober 2016 · pp.13, 70-72 · section 7.7; endnotes 618-636 · Commonwealth of Australia (ISBN 978-1-925289-89-3, CC BY 3.0 AU)
“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”
September 2017 · p.8 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Watch the video Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments—Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers, and then answer the following questions: What situation tested the loyalty of Sonja’s parents? What helped them to remain loyal? How did their loyalty to Jehovah benefit Sonja?”
Oktober 2017 · pp.12-16 · par. 17-20 (quote at par. 19) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.”
“courts can only review the decisions of public decision-makers and that private decision-makers don’t have to follow fair procedures unless an enforceable legal right is at stake”
2019 · pp.141-156 · par. 24-40 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This will alert faithful ones in the congregation to stop associating with that person.—1 Cor. 5:11.”
19. Januar 2021 · pp.2458-2480 · Abstract; Results · Heather J. Ransom; Rebecca L. Monk; Derek Heim · Springer (open access, CC BY)
“Narratives suggest that experiences of ostracism following religious exit can be associated with diminished mental health, while having a sense of agency and establishing new (online) social connections may help mitigate adverse consequences.”
“De vzw Christelijke Gemeente van Jehovah’s Getuigen werd veroordeeld tot een geldboete van 96.000 euro voor het aanzetten tot discriminatie en haat tegen ex-leden.”
April 2021 · ch. 12 par. 17, 44-46; ch. 16 par. 27-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (published as inquiry evidence by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, New Zealand)
“If a publisher in the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. ... He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision.”
“Results suggest shunning has a long-term, detrimental effect on mental health, job possibilities, and life satisfaction. ... Feelings of loneliness, loss of control, and worthlessness are also common after leaving.”
9. August 2023 · pp.644-662 · Abstract · Myriam V. Thoma; Andreas Goreis; Shauna L. Rohner; Urs M. Nater; Eva Heim; Jan Höltge · Taylor & Francis (open access, CC BY)
“This study assessed a sample of former Jehovah’s Witnesses (N = 424 ... ). Most participants (66%) were born into this faith community. Half the sample left voluntarily, 21% were expelled ... One third reported suicidal thoughts; 10% had attempted suicide.”
15. März 2024 · Mark Sanderson (Governing Body) · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Under our current arrangement, we don’t say a greeting to individuals who’ve been removed from the congregation. However, the Governing Body has decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide whether to give a simple greeting and welcome a disfellowshipped individual who attends a congregation meeting.”
August 2024 · pp.26-31 · par. 3-6, 10-15; footnote b; box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.”
August 2024 · pp.20-25 · par. 17-18 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“What about baptized minors—those under 18 years of age—who engage in serious wrongdoing? The body of elders will arrange for two elders to meet with the minor and his Christian parents. ... However, what if a baptized minor unrepentantly persists in a wrong course? In that case, a committee of elders will meet with him along with his Christian parents.”
“The State has not demonstrated in concrete terms whether, and to what extent, baptised minor members of Jehovah’s Witnesses actually experience pressure not to commit norm violations or not to withdraw, out of fear of being subjected to a disfellowshipping process ... and of losing relationships with family and friends within the religious community.”
29. April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett
“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”
4. Juni 2026 · Abstract · Windy A. Grendele; Savin Bapir-Tardy; Maya Flax · Springer (open access, CC BY)
“Twenty-one former Jehovah’s Witnesses who were officially shunned were interviewed online or by phone, and the data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. ... the majority of participants demonstrated resilience and psychological growth.”
18. September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”