Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 73
Yes, apostates publish literature that resorts to distortions, half-truths, and
outright falsehood. They even picket Witness conventions, trying to trap the
unwary. Hence it would be a dangerous thing to allow our curiosity to move us to
feed on such writings or to listen to their abusive speech!… What would you expect
from the table of demons? (“At Which Table,” 1994, p. 12)
An apostate, by WTS definition, is one who “rebels against God and rejects his truth,” that
is, a person who disagrees with WTS‟s version of “truth” (Watchtower Society, 1971, p. 91).
Another article states that
Some apostates … reject teachings or requirements set out in his word. Others
claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah‟s organization…. True Christians
share Jehovah‟s feelings toward such apostates they are not curious about
apostate ideas. On the contrary, they feel a loathing toward those who have made
themselves God‟s enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance.
(“Search Through Me,” 1993, p. 19)
Members who choose to leave because of disagreement over doctrine, or who are forced out
of the organization because of nonconformist behavior, are subject to disfellowshipping --a
form of shunning that does not allow any current member to associate with the
disfellowshipped person. The Watchtower states:
Baptized servants of Jehovah who deliberately follow a wicked course and refuse to
change must be viewed as unrepentant and thus unfit for Christian fellowship….
They must be expelled….it removes from their midst one who could exercise a bad
influence on them. It also protects the purity of the congregation.
(“Disfellowshipping,” 1995, p. 25)
If the disfellowshipped person disagrees publicly in any way with WTS teachings, he or she
automatically becomes an “apostate.” Since members are not allowed to associate with
disfellowshipped members, information potentially critical of WTS is handily kept out of
members‟ reach by not allowing them to discourse with former members about their
reasons for leaving the organization.
Shunning as a Form of Control
Disfellowshipping in WTS does not simply bar a person from practicing religious rites, but
also serves to cut the victim off from friends and family, who are not allowed to speak with
that person except, in some cases, to deal with “important family business.” Members are
encouraged to “loath” the individual in question. In personal and professional contacts, the
first author is familiar with a number of cases in which family members --including children,
grandchildren, and parents --have completely shunned a disfellowshipped person for years
she has also experienced this herself.
Members are condemned to suffer this extreme punishment for reasons that include a wide
range of behaviors from adultery and criminal activity, to such things as cigarette smoking,
disagreeing with doctrinal points, celebrating birthdays or holidays, attending another
church‟s services, and accepting a blood transfusion, to name a few. One respondent
expressed a common sentiment, writing, “I was never good enough, if I said the wrong
thing I would be disfellowshipped, I was forced to wear a „mask‟ so none would see how I
really felt.”
Disfellowshipping is a serious and often psychologically devastating punishment. Members
of the congregation are required to treat the disfellowshipped as if they were dead. Lifelong
friends no longer acknowledge former members when they see them on the street. Eye
contact is avoided. Socializing in any form with a disfellowshipped person may lead to
censure and possible disfellowshipping of the current member. The disfellowshipped person

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 74
is viewed as “dead to God,” with no hope of salvation and as belonging now to the camp of
the devil. Those who stay in the organization do so with the threat of disfellowshipping
always hanging over their head. As Franz (1991) bluntly writes, “To use the threat of
organizational disfellowshipment, with all its consequences, to intimidate people into
conforming to a particular policy when their conscience dictates otherwise…is a form of
spiritual extortion, spiritual blackmail” (p. 387).
The Issue of Patriarchy
The Concept of Patriarchy
In a patriarchal society, men are the holders of power. Patriarchy is defined as a “male
dominated social system, with descent through the male line” (Oxford Dictionary of Current
English, 1992, p. 653). Patriarchy is thought to have arisen in conjunction with the concept
of private property and the need to pass property on to an heir (Engels, 1972), usually
male. In a traditional patriarchal society, women usually do not earn wages by working
outside the home, which places them in a financially dependent position to their male
partner and eliminates or decreases outside contacts and information about the world at
large. In a patriarchal society, women generally do not hold positions of power or influence
in the community. It is the men who sit on the village counsel, who vote, instruct, police,
and guide the community. A woman‟s primary role is to provide care and nurturance to her
husband and children. Without financial resources and with little community recognition or
power, a woman in this kind of society either adapts to her role and “fits in,” struggles
against the order of things and becomes a “problem,” or, if possible, leaves in search of a
society with more egalitarian values.
Historically, women have been viewed in many societies as inferior in intellectual ability and
subordinate in position to men (Bullough, 1973). In many societies over the centuries, a
woman‟s right to choose her own destiny has been limited, her ability to pursue an
avocation outside the home has been restricted, and she has not always been allowed a
vote. In some countries, women are still seen outside the home only when veiled from head
to foot. In many societies women have, at times, been prohibited from owning property
and, in some cases, have been regarded as property, useful as objects to trade in marriage
contracts for benefits, alliances, cattle, or status. Similarly, daughters have been seen as a
poor second choice to sons who could carry on the family name and inherit property. As
recently as the 19th century, philosophers and writers were firm in their beliefs that women
were unable to reason or deliberate logically and that submissiveness was good for a
woman. As Chafe states, “Since women‟s ideal role was to be supportive of their husbands,
care for their children, and provide a haven from the troubles of the outside world, the idea
that they might wish an independent life or career of their own seemed unnatural” (1977, p.
7). The common view was that a woman‟s “natural inclination” to nurture others and her
lack of logic and intelligence precluded her from participating in public life, much less
adopting a leadership role in the family or society (Bullough, 1973).
In Western society, women are now able to inherit property, run for office, and develop
careers that place them in competition with men. Women, for the most part, are able to
guide their own destinies. Nevertheless, unequal pay, sexual harassment, “glass ceilings,”
and “pink ghettos” are remnants of the patriarchal system that continue with us today. As
recently as 1990, authors Johnson and Ferguson stated:
The present arrangement almost guarantees that women will suffer from a
disproportional amount of depression, anxiety, submerged or ineffective anger,
lack of sexual fulfillment, and other emotional disturbances … the symptoms
associated with these conflicts will continue until the basic inequality between
women and men is addressed and changed. (p. 37)