Disassociate the Inactive? Maybe Not.

by metatron 40 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  Imagine what would happen in countless congregations across the globe if the Society formally announced that "so and so is no longer one of

  Jehovah's Witnesses" simply because they became inactive.

  Not only would many congregations suffer under the burden of having their younger Witness demographic get "expelled" , often one by

  one, in a steady drip as they fornicate/smoke/do weed/whatever, man - BUT YOU NOW ADD A REGULAR STREAM OF

  DEPRESSING ANNOUNCEMENTS AS PEOPLE TURN INACTIVE!

  I think even Circuit Overseers would have a fit over such a procedure. There's nothing more discouraging to a congregation than a steady

  diet of disfellowshipping announcements. A little is "discipline", too much is disaster.

  While I view the Governing Body as having the collective IQ of a gnat, I think the effects of such a Draconian move would be quick and too

  dramatic to sustain.

  In addition, such a move -if put in print - could have legal and political sideffects. Expelling the active would give strong evidence

  that being one of Jehovah's Witnesses IS NOT VOLUNTARY. Missing meetings and field service would become practical

  requirements - that could swing court decisions and child custody cases - and situations involving diplomatic interventions

  ( Eurocrat: you want us to do what for you? in the name of what human rights?) against the Society.

  In summary, I think the matter will be handled by the usual, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink".

  metatron
• 

  DanTheMan

  I agree, the only way I see this happening is if there's some sort of bizarre master plan being implemented to "shake the tree" as violently as possible in an effort to significantly reduce the number of persons officially recognized by Brooklyn as being JW's. I can't think of any reason why they would do that.
• 

  Jourles

  Draw the line this way ---

  Inactive = non-donating

  Non-donating = dead money

  Dead money = WTS can't function

  WTS can't function = get rid of dead money
• 

  metatron

  Ah, but the dead money are the actual publishers, increasingly!

  The inactive aren't even there to attend , much less contribute. It's the active who are creating cash issues.

  metatron
• 

  IP_SEC

  Why do many people become inactive? Because they can. As it is they can become dead weight (still get mags books tapes whatevah) without contributing to the company by selling books or paying for merchandise. If you fire them for that my guess is that many inactives would start selling again just so they could still talk to their family and friends.
• 

  Jourles

  The inactive aren't even there to attend , much less contribute. It's the active who are creating cash issues.

  Not in all cases. I was inactive for many years but still attended. I never contributed in all those years. I'm not sure if my wife did or not(I never phsically saw her drop anything in the box). Only at the assemblies did she contribute(or make me put something in the box for her).

  There could be instances where the inactive spouse tells their mate that under no circumstances they will contribute. (I used to rent an apartment from a "brother" that told his wife this)

  The WTS could view it as trimming the fat. Once one spouse is da'd, the remaining 'faithful' spouse may contribute more? behind their back evoking the theocratic warfare clause.

  But who's to say at this point? We'll have to wait a few more months to see where the WTS is taking this - if they're even taking it anywhere in the first place.
• 

  AuldSoul

  I agree, IP_SEC.

  Also, being one of Jehovah's Witnesses has repeatedly been tied to being an active witness for Jehovah, this principle has long since been legally established as a doctrinal point which the courts will not touch. The parameters by which the congregation determines that someone has chosen to remove themselves from the congregation are untouchable by the courts. Which is why blood transfusion recipients are considered disassociated, the courts can't touch the religious determination that someone is choosing to leave God's organization by a given action (or inaction, in this case).

  Whether or not someone is an active witness is a personal choice, i.e. it IS voluntary. 100% voluntary. If someone chooses to become inactive they have voluntarily chosen to STOP being a witness for Jehovah, i.e. voluntarily chosen to stop being one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  With regard to shaking the tree, I believe there is a very good reason to do this. The Governing Body is becoming increasingly concerned at the impacts of the leaven in the congregations. In times past, when someone started to discover the lie about the truth they had no easy outlet for their frustrations and eventually exploded on the congregation (establishing the image of the foaming mouth, rabid apostate). NOW, the faders have a very effective venting mechanism on the Internet. These hangers-on are working as a poison in the congregations and the GB is very much aware of the insidious damage being done to their goals.

  I have little doubt that this will be coming soon. They have to react to this threat, and it is a very real threat. It will also reactivate many (if only as a show) who will want to maintain relationships with friends and family which will bolster the yearly reports that have been flagging for some time in many countries.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Poztate

  I believe it is possible that some sort of INFORMAL shunning arrangement is going to be implemented are inactive = no longer a "witness"= no longer our sort so they should be avoided as association. No need for any announcements at the meetings and the goal is the same.

  If they ever got into active DA'ing and announcements at the meetings this policy would create HUGE problems and headaches for them. It makes me HOPE this is the way they will go. I would like to see this CULT self destruct.
• 

  greendawn

  There was talk about this issue last summer one year ago but in the end nothing happened the inactive were not excommunicated, however in practice in many JW communities they are a very marginalised group, they are called weak brothers or sisters and possibly bad company.
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  I believe it is possible that some sort of INFORMAL shunning arrangement is going to be implemented are inactive = no longer a "witness"= no longer our sort so they should be avoided as association. No need for any announcements at the meetings and the goal is the same.

  This actually happened to my boyfriend. He da'd last July, almost a year ago, but hadn't been to a meeting since November 1999. When he first stopped going, no one ignored him, but after a couple of years, certain ones began to shun him. The elders went to see him about his "status", last June, almost 5 years since they had last called on him, and that's when he decided to da.