Is it really proper to say that the Witness organization is a “destructive religion (or cult)” or that they promote “self-destructive” behavior in its members? Most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so. I think the situation is actually more complex, however. I don’t believe it is fair to categorically state that they are destructive without defining what one actually means by such a label. Let’s peruse four different domains in which a group or individual can be thought of as “destructive”:
Physically: This is probably what most people think of when they hear the word “destructive.” David Koresh and Jim Jones obviously led groups that would rightly be labeled as destructive in this way. The alcoholic or drug addict can also be thought of as engaging in self-destructive behavior that effects the physical domain (either to the abuser or to others). Three areas come to mind that might open the Witnesses up to accusations they are physically destructive: their stance on blood transfusions, poor handling of cases of abuse (sexual or physical), and possibly their politically neutral stance which might open individuals up to uncessary physical persecution (for example, Malawi).
In the first instance -- blood transfusions -- one must admit that present day technologies make death from lack of a blood transfusion a rarity. Also, there might be few instances -- especially years ago or in underdeveloped countries -- where refusing a blood transfusion has saved individual Witnesses from complications or even death (although, it must be admitted the reverse is also true). So, all in all, it might be said that this peculiar practice of refusing blood transfusions may be physically destructive. But is it really fair to then give the categorical label of destructiveness based on just this practice? Looking at the matter mathematically may help answer this question: in all probability the potential for individual Witnesses to be physically harmed from the Society’s stance on blood is very low.
The Society’s handling of abuse cases has been given great attention on this forum and in the popular press. Surely there was mismanagement on the part of the organization’s representatives both on the local level and from Brooklyn. But changes have been made and it is quite possible that further changes will be made from the top down, especially as further negative press comes to light. Just like blood transfusions I don’t think that one can judge the whole of the organization on just one aspect of it’s parts.
Because of their neutral stance the Society has promoted needlessly destructive behavior on the part of some of their members, such as those in Malawi in the 1970’s. But again, how many lives have been saved due to the Witnesses politically neutral stance (not going to war, engaging in civil conflict, etc)? I would wager that more have been saved than lost.
Therefore, I conclude that it is inaccurate to say that the Witness organization is destructive in the physical domain. Perhaps what most people mean by their use of the label “destructive”, however, is emotional, mental and social. I think a greater case can be made that they are indeed destructive in these spheres, although broad categorizations are still open to dispute.
For those who have been disfellowshipped, reproved, shunned and reaped the disciplinary whirlwind from the elders a strong case can be made that the organization’s practices have been subjectively harmful. On a milder scale than most, I too have experienced the psychological pain and social stigmatization that are the by-products of the Society’s draconian moralism. But I think one must realize that not all Witnesses experience this pain, nor do all who are involved in judicial matters resent the discipline they meet. Other than those who leave the organization permanently, the emotional pain and social inconveniences endured by those reproved or disfellowshipped are temporary and their memory usually fades. It is those who leave the fold on a long-term basis that are truly the ones who are hurt, and in this regard I do believe it is proper to call the organization “emotionally and socially destructive.”
But notice I wrote “in this regard.” I think that it is impossible to categorically brand the entire organization destructive due to their practices of disfellowshipping and shunning of former members (not all of whom are shunned, I might add). Just as with the other examples mentioned earlier, most Witnesses will never experience this sort of pain on a long-term basis. Since the Society’s practices are not emotionally destructive for the majority of it’s members, I don’t think it is fair to label them destructive. On the other hand, since a sizeable minority do experience this pain I don’t think it is proper to label them harmless or benign either. The truth is somewhere between these poles.