I was pulled aside a couple of months ago by two fellow elders for talking to a disfellowshipped friend of mine at the hall in the second school (we still haven't renamed it even though 'the school' no longer exists) with another elder.
Aside from my calling them Pharisees meddling in other people's business, I suggested they read this Watchtower article: w74 1st August pp. 466-473 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones. It's gold dust when it comes to reasoning with any judgmental JW over the shunning issue, especially an elder.
Par. 5: Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshipped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way.
Par. 9: What, then, if a congregation elder were to meet up with a person who had been disfellowshipped, perhaps in the elder’s daily routine, on the street, in his secular work or similar activity? ... but not all who slip into a sinful way become ‘deceivers and antichrists.’ So, if that one is not of that class, would not Jehovah God’s own example allow for the elder to speak words exhorting the disfellowshipped one to seek to regain a good standing with God? (my thoughts: if it's ok for an elder then why not for anyone else? After all, we are all supposed to be the same.)
Par. 10: We may note, too, that at 1 Corinthians 5:11 the apostle warns against mixing in company with one who “is” a fornicator or practiser of some other kind of serious wrongdoing. What, however, of the one who has been disfellowshipped for being that kind of person but who thereafter, either at an early point or at a later point in time, gives consistent evidence of discontinuing such wrong practice, stopping it? Can it be said that he or she still “is” a fornicator or whatever type of wrongdoer such a one was that caused him or her to be as “leaven” toward the congregation?
Par. 21: As to disfellowshipped 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. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshipping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshipped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honour to a parent, though disfellowshipped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshipping.
I got the rebuttal that this is "old information" and we have updated procedures since then so I replied, "well how come it has not been edited out of the WT Library then? Also I find this much more in harmony with how Jesús treated non-Christians, even notorious sinners, rather than the attitude you two are displaying!" I had no further bother.
The WTS has taken disfellowshipping way too far and goes against even their own original thoughts when they criticised the Catholics back in the 50s for doing the very same thing. As Angus Stewart said when questioning Geoff Jackson in the ARC trial two years ago, 'there is no graceful way to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses'!
I hope that WT article helps some of you.
