I - Inactive versus removed

Recognizable questions What does it mean when someone becomes inactive? Is an inactive Jehovah’s Witness still a Jehovah’s Witness? Can an inactive person later still be removed from the congregation? Why can one inactive person live freely while another is constantly afraid that elders will find something out? Why does someone sometimes hide a relationship from their own parents? What happens when two people eventually lead almost the same life, but one still sees her family and the other does not? How does that feel for someone who was disfellowshipped years ago even though the situation that led to it ended long ago? Can you ever become truly free when you have spent years learning that one discovery can change your social life? And what does it do to someone when family, friends, and even care providers barely understand why that still hurts years later? Inactive and disfellowshipped are not the same Someone who goes to meetings less and less, no longer preaches, or eventually hardly participates in congregation life anymore is not automatically disfellowshipped. Jehovah’s Witnesses say in their current public explanation that when a Witness slows down or stops worshipping, other Witnesses actually try to help him and rekindle his interest in spiritual matters. In everyday JW language, such a person is often called inactive . Someone who has officially been disfellowshipped has a different religious status. According to the current rules, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not keep up social contact with someone who has been disfellowshipped, although that person may attend meetings and, in many cases, be greeted there. On paper, that difference seems clear. In everyday life, however, it can become much more complicated. Inactive does not automatically mean free Being inactive does not automatically mean that someone is completely outside religious standards and congregation procedures. A baptized person can be barely active for years and still be regarded as a Jehovah’s Witness. When conduct that is considered a serious sin within the faith becomes known, elders may still become involved depending on the circumstances. Current JW publications say that when someone has committed a serious sin, elders first try to help him change his conduct. If, in their view, someone continues to violate Bible standards despite that help and shows no repentance, disfellowshipping may follow. As a result, two inactive people can have the same official status and still feel completely different. One thinks: “Everyone more or less knows how I live. Nobody is interfering.” The other thinks: “If they know exactly how I live, everything could change.” Living freely and still looking over your shoulder On paper, an inactive person can have a lot of freedom. In reality, it may not feel that way. Suppose a woman is walking through the market in her own hometown with her partner. She is holding his hand. In her view, there is nothing wrong with the relationship. Then suddenly she spots someone from her former congregation. Maybe nothing happens at all. Even so, her hand may almost automatically let go. Thoughts may come up immediately: Did he see us? Does he know who this man is? Is he going to tell? Will I get a phone call soon? Will elders show up at my door soon? Could this eventually mean that contact with my parents, brother, or sister changes? The rest of the day may remain tense. Maybe even for days. Even though nothing has actually happened yet. When the danger is social For the body, danger does not always have to mean physical danger. The prospect of losing important relationships can also trigger a strong stress response. When someone feels for a long time that certain information could have major consequences, they may become extra alert: Who sees me? Who knows this? Who is talking to whom? Why is that elder calling all of a sudden? Why is my father messaging me דווקא today? In psychology, the term hyperawareness or hypervigilance is sometimes used for this heightened state of alertness. That is not a diagnosis in itself and does not mean that every inactive or former Jehovah’s Witness has a mental disorder. But it does describe something recognizable: being constantly prepared for something that could have major consequences. You actually want to live honestly That can be especially bitter. Someone may have just decided: ‘From now on, I want to live honestly. I don’t want a double life. I don’t want to do anything secretly.’ But at the same time, full openness doesn’t feel safe. Because honestly telling people who your partner is, what your relationship looks like, where you’re going, or what you now believe can have religious or family consequences. Then a strange contradiction arises: you want to live cleanly and honestly, but you feel you can’t fully show who you are. Not because you’re ashamed of your current life. But because you’re afraid of what other people will do with that information. ‘How much of myself can I safely show?’ That can actually create two kinds of freedom: the freedom to do something and: the freedom to make it visible that you’re doing it . Someone can be in a relationship but not post anything about it. Celebrate a birthday but only send photos to a few people. Go to a festival but first check who can see the WhatsApp status. Go on holiday with their partner but be careful about what family hears. Formally, there is no elder standing next to him saying: ‘You’re not allowed to do that.’ And yet a large part of the old oversight may have remained on the inside: ‘Can I be seen doing this?’ A woman who so wanted to tell her parents An anonymized experience shows how complicated that can become. A woman was no longer active in the congregation and had started a new relationship. She very much wanted to tell her parents that she was in love. Normally, it is your parents you want to tell: ‘I’ve met someone.’ ‘I’m happy.’ ‘This is the person I want to share my life with.’ But her father was an elder. She was afraid that if her parents knew exactly what her relationship looked like and that situation was seen within the faith as a serious sin, her father, because of his convictions and responsibilities, would not simply be able to say: ‘This stays between us.’ She feared that other elders would get involved and that she could eventually be removed from the congregation. And then much more was at stake for her than simply whether her parents approved of her relationship. The deeper fear was: ‘If I’m honest about my life, will I lose my parents?’ So she didn’t tell them Not because she didn’t love her parents. Precisely because she loved them so much. Only when she got married did she send her parents an invitation. That was when they were clearly confronted with a part of her life she had not been able to tell them fully for a long time. Her parents came to her wedding day. Since then, contact has continued. For them, marriage apparently made a difference in what they could accept from their own faith and conscience. That individual story therefore ended relatively well. But the years before it show something important: What does it do to a person when being honest with the people they love most can at the same time feel risky? One inactive person is not afraid, another is That is why there is not just one experience of being inactive . One person now lives openly in a different way. Their family knows. Little happens and they hardly ever think about elders anymore. Another person has the same formal status but constantly checks what becomes visible. The first may feel: ‘I’m basically out already.’ The second: ‘I’m out, but I don’t know whether they think I’m out.’ That difference can be enormous. Being inactive can therefore bring freedom, but for some people it can also lead to years in between: no longer truly in, but not completely safe outside either . And then there is the one who has already been disfellowshipped For someone who has been disfellowshipped, the tension is different. They no longer have to fear: ‘What if they disfellowship me?’ It has already happened. But that does not mean the pain has disappeared. The fear of loss may have turned into living with loss . No more normal conversations with people you grew up with. A mother you hardly ever see. A brother or sister who no longer just drops by. Friends with whom you shared joys and sorrows for years and who are no longer part of your daily life. Family news you hear through others. Holidays, births, illness, and ordinary Sunday afternoons in which the absence of family can once again be deeply felt. Two women, almost the same current life That difference becomes especially visible when two lives are placed side by side. The first woman was a Jehovah’s Witness for many years and was very unhappy in her marriage. During that period, she entered into a relationship with another man. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, adultery is considered a serious sin. She was disfellowshipped. Later, her first marriage ended. She remarried. Years passed. Her current marriage became stable. The situation in which the adultery had taken place no longer existed. She built a peaceful life. But she remained disfellowshipped. Contact with her parents, brothers, sisters, and former friends therefore remained very limited. Another woman also experienced the end of her marriage and later built a different life. But in the years before that, she had gradually withdrawn from the congregation. She became inactive and was not formally disfellowshipped. She too no longer lives as an active Jehovah’s Witness. But she still has her family. Years later, their current lives can in many respects look very similar. One can call her mother. The other cannot. One drinks coffee with her sister. The other may hear from someone else how her sister is doing. ‘Why her and not me?’ For the person who has been disfellowshipped, that can be especially painful. She may look at an inactive woman who now also celebrates birthdays, has a different social life, and has not taken an active part in the congregation for years. And think: ‘But what is still so different between us today?’ ‘Why is she allowed to see her mother?’ ‘Why does she still have her family?’ ‘Why does something that happened years ago still determine who wants to have contact with me today?’ That does not have to be jealousy toward the other woman. You can wish someone family contact while feeling intense grief over what you yourself are missing. ‘What am I still being kept at arm’s length for today?’ That question can become even stronger when the behavior for which someone was disfellowshipped long ago no longer happens. The woman in the example no longer lives in the marriage in which she was unfaithful at the time. The affair from back then is not an ongoing situation. She may have been in a stable marriage for years by now. Her daily life may be completely different. For her, that can create a painful experience: ‘I am long no longer the woman who was then in the middle of that situation. Why does that event still determine my relationship with my parents and brothers or sisters?’ From the Jehovah’s Witness point of view, the answer is that her religious status does not depend solely on the fact that the old behavior has stopped. According to their rules, returning to the congregation also requires repentance and restoration through their religious process. For the woman herself, however, it can feel as though an event from her past continues to affect her socially, even when her current life is completely different . Is that a lifelong punishment? Jehovah’s Witnesses will not necessarily describe disfellowshipping as a lifelong punishment. According to their teaching, return is still possible. Elders can help someone become part of the congregation again when, in their view, repentance and change are present. An active family member can therefore sincerely think: ‘I am not punishing her. I am following Jehovah’s instructions, and she can come back.’ But the person who has been disfellowshipped may experience the same thing very differently: ‘I can only have a normal relationship with the people I love again if I also change my religious standing.’ When someone does not want to return to the faith, the social consequence can in practice become very long-lasting. For that person, it can feel like ongoing punishment or emotional rejection , even when that is not how the active JW intends it. Intent and experience are not the same That distinction matters. A mother may think: ‘I love my daughter very much and I am trying to obey Jehovah.’ The daughter may experience: ‘My mother will only fully accept me again if I once more meet the religious conditions.’ Both experiences can be sincere at the same time. That is what makes the subject so difficult. The intention may be religious loyalty. The experienced result may be emotional rejection. Understanding why someone follows a religious rule does not automatically mean you understand how that rule feels to the person on the other side. ‘But you chose it yourself, didn’t you?’ An active Jehovah’s Witness may think: ‘She knew what the standards were.’ ‘She made her own choices.’ ‘No one forced her to commit adultery.’ There is a understandable idea of personal responsibility behind that. Adultery can deeply damage a partner. An unhappy marriage does not automatically make cheating free of consequences or moral questions. But personal responsibility and long-term social loss are two different issues. Someone can say: ‘I should have handled things differently back then.’ and at the same time: ‘I don’t think it’s reasonable that that mistake still determines, twenty years later, whether I can see my mother normally.’ One does not exclude the other. When responsibility becomes ‘your own fault’ There is a difference between: ‘You are responsible for your choices.’ and: ‘Therefore, the pain you are experiencing now is entirely your own fault.’ When grief is met with: ‘But you knew what would happen, didn’t you?’ there may be little room left to take the present pain seriously. In psychology, attributing someone’s suffering to their own behavior is sometimes discussed under victim blaming . That term should be used carefully here: not every estranged person is automatically a victim, and responsibility for one’s own choices does not disappear. But it is still possible to ask: is taking responsibility the same as believing that someone should keep carrying social loss for years? Meanwhile, the inactive person may also be paying a price The contrast should not make the inactive person’s difficult position invisible. She may still have her parents. But maybe she has kept things from them for years. Maybe she has let go of her partner in the street the moment she saw a Witness. Maybe she still checks who can see her status. Maybe she startles when an unknown number calls. Maybe after every chance encounter she wonders: ‘What happens now?’ She still has her family, but may feel that the relationship only remains safe as long as certain parts of her life are not too visible. That is another kind of burden. As long as no one knows That can create an awkward in-between world. The family knows someone is no longer active. But maybe not exactly how he lives. Everyone may even know there are topics better not discussed in detail. That can work practically. But it can also mean someone is constantly filtering: I’ll say this. Not that. This photo can go online. Better not this one. About my relationship, I’ll only say this. I’ll give a vague answer to this question. That can be seen as self-censorship : deliberately not sharing certain information because of the expected consequences. And sometimes a conflict of loyalty arises: I want to be true to myself, but I also don’t want to lose my family. Can you ever be completely yourself then? That touches on something deeper than religious rules. Many people want to live a life that feels honest, clean, and authentic . You do not want to keep thinking: ‘What do I need to hide?’ You want to be able to walk through a market with your partner without automatically letting go of their hand. You want to be able to share a photo because you are happy. You want to be able to tell your mother who you are in love with. You do not want to have to calculate first which version of yourself is safe enough every time. When that does feel necessary, someone may think: ‘Am I really free if I’m allowed to live my own life, but constantly afraid of being seen living it?’ Your conviction can change before your sense of safety does Someone may have completely stepped away from the faith intellectually. He may think: ‘I no longer believe I’m doing anything wrong.’ But his body may still react when he sees a former elder. That is not as strange as it may sound. People do not only learn ideas. They also learn expectations. If someone has spent years experiencing or expecting that certain choices can lead to conversations, disapproval, or loss of important relationships, a similar situation later can automatically trigger tension. A conviction can change within months. A learned stress response does not have to disappear at the same pace. ‘But you’re out, aren’t you?’ For outsiders, that can be hard to understand. A friend may say: ‘You’re not a Jehovah’s Witness anymore, are you? Why do you still care?’ From the outside, that seems logical. But for someone who has lived for decades within one religious social world, many things may have been intertwined: belief, parents, brothers and sisters, friends, standards, conscience, future, identity, and social safety . So you’re not just leaving a belief behind. You may have to reorganize several parts of your life at the same time. Even a psychologist does not always understand it right away Even a good professional helper does not automatically know the specific dynamics of Jehovah’s Witnesses or of another close-knit religious community. Someone may try to explain: ‘I’m afraid someone will see me with my partner.’ Without context, that can seem disproportionate. But when the underlying thought is: ‘If this reaches the elders, my religious standing could change and that could affect contact with my parents’ it becomes clear that there is much more behind that one encounter. That does not mean that only an ex-JW can understand an ex-JW. A psychologist can actually be very helpful. It can be important, though, that there is room to understand concepts such as religious loss, ostracism, social control, family estrangement, loyalty conflict, self-censorship, and long-term stress . Can you keep suffering from this for life? Some people experience recurring tension or grief for years. But it is too absolute to say that everyone will have lifelong stress from this or that someone can never get free of it. People can recover. New relationships can start to feel safer. A new social network can emerge. The fear of the elders can gradually diminish. Eventually, someone may run into a former Witness without being upset for days afterward. At the same time, certain grief can keep coming back for a long time, especially when the loss itself is still present. When your parents are still alive but hardly have any contact with you, there is no fully closed past. The source of the grief is still partly there. Triggers can come unexpectedly Sometimes it only takes something small. A colleague says: ‘On Sunday we’re having a nice meal with my parents and all my brothers and sisters.’ For the colleague, that is a normal remark. For someone who hardly sees their own parents and siblings, it can suddenly sting. Not because he doesn’t wish the other person that happiness. But because the same sentence confronts him with: ‘My life could have been like that too.’ A wedding. Mother’s Day. A birth. A hospital admission. A family photo. Someone talking about a weekend with brothers and sisters. Those moments can reactivate old pain. Mourning people who are still alive That can be a special kind of loss. The people have not died. They are still alive. Maybe they live nearby. Maybe you see their photos. Maybe you know exactly where your mother lives. But the relationship you once had is gone. Research into former Jehovah’s Witnesses has used the phrase ‘grieving the living’ for this: mourning people who are still alive. That research is small-scale and cannot describe how every former Jehovah’s Witness feels. Still, it does show why loss through religious shunning can be so complicated. There is grief, but no ordinary closure. There are people you are grieving, even though they could still be reachable. Ostracism In psychology, excluding or socially ignoring someone is called ostracism . Research shows that social exclusion can affect fundamental needs, including belonging, self-esteem, control, and the feeling of mattering . That does not mean that every excluded person develops psychological problems. It does help explain why the long-term loss of family and a familiar community can have such a deep impact. For someone who has been disfellowshipped, that loss can be very real. For someone who is inactive, the fear of possible future loss can play an important role. Also read in A-Z Encyclopedie van de Psychologie: O - Ostracism - What does long-term social exclusion do to a person? Three different positions, three different tensions As a result, three people can experience very different kinds of strain. An active Jehovah’s Witness may struggle with loyalty to family versus what he believes Jehovah requires. An inactive person may still have his family, but fear that full openness could still lead to congregation and social consequences. An disfellowshipped person no longer has to fear being disfellowshipped, but may live for years with the loss that has already taken place. So the simple sentence: ‘Isn’t everyone free to leave?’ tells only a small part of the story. Why does someone sometimes want to return? That also explains why some disfellowshipped people consider going back. It may be because they genuinely believe again that Jehovah’s Witnesses have the truth. But it may also be because they miss their mother. Their children. Their brothers and sisters. Their friends. Their community. Or all of those things at once. That is why the desire to return does not automatically prove why someone wants to return. A relevant question might be: ‘Do I want to go back to what I believed, to the people I miss, or to both?’ Building a new network For someone who does not want to return, an enormous practical and social task may lie ahead. New friendships do not happen automatically. Someone who lived within the congregation for decades often already had a complete network: family, friends, meetings, activities, and people to rely on. Outside that environment, someone sometimes has to consciously build what used to be naturally present. That can happen through work, sports, study, volunteering, neighborhood activities, old contacts, hobbies, or fellow sufferers. It does not have to happen quickly. A new network can begin with one person you have coffee with. One coworker you trust. One sports club. One old friend who comes back into the picture. Little by little, a social life can grow from there. Read more on ExJW.World : Recovery - Social rebuilding after the congregation - How do you build new contacts, friendships, and a sense of belonging step by step? Recovery does not mean you never feel anything again Maybe that is an important distinction. Recovery does not have to mean: ‘My family can never hurt me again.’ or: ‘I never feel tense when I see someone from the congregation.’ Recovery can also mean: ‘It still affects me sometimes, but it no longer determines my whole life.’ You hold your partner’s hand. You see someone from the congregation. You may feel that old tension for a moment. But you no longer automatically let go. That is freedom too. For your own reflection What does being inactive mean in practice for different people? How free does someone feel when they do not know which information could still have consequences? What does it do to someone to keep their relationship or other important parts of their life hidden from their own parents? Can you truly live honestly when you constantly have to weigh what is safe to make visible? When does caution become self-censorship? How much stress can the expectation of possible social loss cause, even when that loss does not ultimately happen? What does it do to someone when they run into a Witness on the street and immediately fear what may happen next? How does it feel for a disfellowshipped person when similarly living inactive family members or former fellow believers keep their family, while they do not? Can someone take responsibility for a mistake from the past and still feel that the current social loss is out of proportion? What happens when the behavior for which someone was disfellowshipped has long since ceased, but their religious status still affects family contact? Can an active JW keep their distance out of religious loyalty, while the disfellowshipped person experiences that same distance as emotional rejection? If someone wants to return, are they longing for the faith, for family, or for both? How much time should someone be allowed to need to build a new identity and a new network? And what does freedom mean when the past still hurts sometimes, but no longer determines what you do today? In conclusion Being inactive and being disfellowshipped are different religious statuses among Jehovah’s Witnesses. For an active Jehovah’s Witness, that distinction matters. An inactive person is not automatically disfellowshipped. For someone who has been disfellowshipped, specific religious rules about association apply. But behind those terms are people. One inactive person goes on living without much fear. Another lives with the constant question of how much of her real life can safely be visible. She holds her partner’s hand, sees someone from the congregation, and suddenly thinks: ‘What will this mean now?’ The disfellowshipped person may no longer have that particular fear. She has already been disfellowshipped. But decades later, she may still feel what that status meant for her parents, brothers, sisters, and friends. Her current life may be stable. The behavior for which she was once disfellowshipped may no longer be happening at all. Still, the loss can remain present every day. This creates a complicated contrast: the inactive person may be afraid of what she can still lose; the disfellowshipped person may grieve what she has already lost. Both may long for the same thing: a life in which they can be honest, show themselves as they are, and love their family without constantly fearing what their religious status will do to that. Perhaps freedom is therefore not only: ‘I am allowed to make my own choices.’ Perhaps it also includes: ‘I can live those choices openly without constantly fearing that one encounter, one photo, or one conversation will change my most important relationships.’ And for the one who has already been disfellowshipped, perhaps: ‘A decision from my past should not keep deciding, over and over again, how much human contact I am worth today.’ If two people end up leading nearly the same life years later, what does it do to the one who lost her family when the other keeps hers — and how much freedom does anyone really have as long as love, honesty, and religious status remain so deeply intertwined? Sources JW.org - How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Former Believers? The Watchtower - August 2024 - Imitating Jehovah’s View of Sinners in the Congregation The Watchtower - August 2024 - Love and Mercy in Response to Sin The Watchtower - August 2024 - Help for Those Who Have Been Disfellowshipped The Watchtower - September 2025 - ‘Let Him Call the Elders (...) to Him’ New World Translation - 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 Heather J. Ransom, Rebecca L. Monk & Derek Heim - Grieving the Living: The Social Death of Former Jehovah’s Witnesses Kipling D. Williams - Ostracism Kipling D. Williams - research on ostracism, belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaning See also in the A-Z Glossary of Jehovah’s Witnesses B - Repentance - Who decides whether someone has shown enough repentance? C - Committee of Elders - How are serious congregation matters handled? E - Elder - What role, responsibility, and influence does an elder have? D - Disfellowshipping - What does disfellowshipping mean, and what can it mean socially and psychologically? F - Free Will - How free does a choice feel when different outcomes can have major social consequences? W - Worldly - What does the contrast between ‘the truth’ and ‘the world’ do to thinking and conscience? See also in the A-Z Encyclopedia of Psychology H - Hypervigilance - What happens when you remain constantly alert to possible danger or loss? L - Loyalty Conflict - What happens when being true to yourself can clash with the bond to people you love? O - Ostracism - What does long-term social exclusion do to a person? S - Social Influence - How do others’ expectations shape our choices without direct coercion? S - Self-Censorship - What happens when you hide parts of yourself out of fear of rejection or loss? Read also on ExJW.World Recovery - Building a Social Life After the Congregation - How do you build a new social network when many old contacts have fallen away? Recovery - I Miss My Community - Why can you miss people and connection even when you do not want to return to the faith?