Boundless after leaving all of a sudden?

Recognizable questions Why do some ex-JWs seem to want to try everything all at once after leaving? Can it feel like you’re going through a kind of second puberty later in life? Why is freedom sometimes harder than expected? What happens when God used to set certain boundaries for years and then you have to learn to set them yourself? Can you be an adult and still have little experience with dating, sexuality, going out, or personal boundaries? Why do some people swing from one extreme to the other? Does that mean the warnings about ‘the world’ were right after all? And how do you develop your own compass when you no longer want to live by prohibitions, but also don’t want to become boundaryless? Do former Jehovah’s Witnesses really let loose more often? Some former Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize a period in which they tried a lot of things after leaving. Going out. Alcohol. Smoking. Dating. Sex. Festivals. Different clothes. New friends. Holidays. Things that used to be forbidden or strongly discouraged. Sometimes that mainly brings new and positive experiences. Sometimes someone makes choices they later look back on differently. But we cannot conclude from that: ‘Ex-JWs make more mistakes than people who have never been Jehovah’s Witnesses.’ There is not enough solid comparative research for that. It is therefore important to distinguish between a recognizable experience among some ex-JWs and a trait that would apply to the whole group. ‘It felt like I was going through puberty again’ Some people describe the first years after leaving as a second puberty . That is not an official psychological diagnosis. But as an image, it can be recognizable. Adolescence and young adulthood are normally periods in which people increasingly explore on their own: Who am I? What do I want? Who do I want a relationship with? What do I think about sex? How do I want to dress? How much do I want to drink? Which values are truly mine? Where are my boundaries? When a large part of those answers had already been strongly determined within family and religious community, some of that personal exploration may only happen later. Maybe delayed exploration or catch-up development are more accurate terms. You do not become sixteen again. But certain parts of identity and autonomy only really get room later on. I used to know what wasn’t allowed Within a clear religious framework, many questions do not have to be re-evaluated personally again and again. There are answers on subjects such as sexuality, relationships, smoking, drugs, socializing, holidays, clothing and marriage. For someone who believes in that, it can actually provide security: ‘I know what Jehovah expects of me.’ Self-control can then become strongly tied to the question: ‘Is this allowed according to God?’ instead of: ‘Do I want this, where are my boundaries, and why?’ As long as someone fully accepts the religious framework, those two do not necessarily conflict at all. The religious standard can also be the personal standard. But when faith later changes, the former reason for guarding a boundary can suddenly feel much less convincing. ‘First God held me back. Then I had to figure it out myself.’ A former Jehovah’s Witness may look back and think: ‘Back then I knew why I didn’t do certain things: God didn’t want it. When I no longer believed that, I suddenly had to figure out for myself what I did and didn’t want.’ That is a bigger transition than simply: ‘This is allowed now.’ The questions change: Do I really want this? Is this good for me? Where are my boundaries? What are the consequences? What risks do I find acceptable? How do I want to treat other people? What kind of person do I want to be myself? There is not necessarily a clear answer to that right away. Freedom requires skills ‘You can choose for yourself now’ sounds simple. But choosing independently requires skills. Feeling your own boundaries. Being able to say no. Being able to delay impulses. Weighing risks. Learning to distinguish between a healthy and an unhealthy relationship. Discovering what you do and do not want sexually. Learning to deal with alcohol. Dealing with loneliness. Being able to admit a mistake without writing yourself off entirely. Setting a boundary when no one else sets it for you. Someone can function excellently at forty as an employee, parent and friend and at the same time have little experience with some forms of autonomous living. Calendar age and experience are not the same thing. What if you never had to practice that extensively? Many young people learn boundaries in part through small experiences. A first relationship that doesn’t work out. An evening when they drink too much and think: ‘I’m not doing that again.’ A friendship in which they learn to stand up for themselves. An argument with parents about curfew. A crush that turns out not to be wise. A moment when they discover: ‘I should have said no sooner.’ Not every experience is necessary or wise, but gradual independence does provide room to practice. When someone has grown up within a highly regulated system, some choices may have barely come up for years. After leaving, the old rules may disappear quickly. But decades of experience with alternatives do not appear all at once. From external to self-chosen boundaries That is why there is an important difference between: ‘I don’t do this because it isn’t allowed.’ and: ‘I don’t do this because I have decided for myself that it doesn’t suit me.’ For example: ‘I don’t smoke because Jehovah disapproves of smoking.’ may later become: ‘I don’t smoke because health and freedom from nicotine are important to me.’ The outcome is the same. The reason has changed. Or: ‘I don’t have sex before marriage because it’s forbidden.’ can become, for example: ‘I want sex when there is mutual consent, trust, safety, and emotional responsibility.’ That does not necessarily lead to the same practical boundary. But it is a boundary you have examined for yourself . A boundary you choose for yourself is still a boundary After following many rules for years, every new boundary can initially feel like being restricted all over again: ‘I’m finally free. So why would I give myself rules again?’ But a self-chosen boundary is something different from an imposed one. ‘I don’t want more than two drinks tonight.’ ‘I don’t want to sleep with someone if I have doubts.’ ‘I don’t use drugs.’ ‘I want to learn to be alone first before I start a new relationship.’ ‘I don’t want to cheat, even if there is no one there to correct me religiously.’ Those are not signs that someone is under control again. They can be autonomy: ‘No one is forbidding it. I am choosing this boundary myself.’ Doing the opposite is not the same as freedom There is another trap as well. If the rule used to be: ‘This is not allowed’ the first reaction after leaving can become: ‘Then I’m going to do it now.’ But even then, the old rule is still partly determining your behavior. Only in the opposite direction. True autonomy may be more like: ‘Whether it used to be forbidden or allowed is no longer decisive. I want to examine for myself whether this suits me.’ So you do not have to get a tattoo. You do not have to smoke. You do not have to drink. You do not have to sleep with different people. You do not have to like Christmas. But you are allowed to look at each topic anew. Psychological reactance This is where the psychological concept of reactance comes in. When people experience their freedom as being heavily restricted, there can be a desire to restore that freedom: ‘Now I’m the one deciding.’ Research on parenting and autonomy shows that highly psychologically controlling forms of parenting and frustration of autonomy can be associated with more resistance or other problems. That does not mean: strict parents automatically raise ‘wild kids.’ The popular saying ‘strict parents create wild kids’ is too absolute for that. It also does not mean that boundaries are bad. Children do need structure and boundaries. The difference lies more between: boundaries with warmth, explanation, and gradually increasing autonomy and: control in which there is little room to practice, ask questions, or choose differently. A religious upbringing is not automatically psychological control That distinction matters. Many Jehovah’s Witnesses raise their children out of love and out of the sincere conviction that Biblical standards provide protection. Families also differ greatly. One family gives relatively a lot of room for personal development. Another is stricter. So it cannot be said that every religious upbringing leads to someone later struggling with boundaries. Still, a highly regulated environment can influence how and when certain forms of autonomy are practiced . From ‘is this allowed?’ to ‘does this suit me?’ After a strongly rule-based system, the automatic question can be long: ‘Am I allowed to do this?’ A next developmental step can be: ‘Does this fit my values?’ That seems like a small difference, but it is a big one. ‘Am I allowed to do this?’ asks about a rule outside yourself. ‘Does this fit me?’ calls for judgment and responsibility. For example: Do I want this? Could anyone be harmed by this? Am I being honest? Is there mutual consent? Is it safe? Can I still stand by my choice tomorrow? Freedom therefore does not mean less morality. It may actually require more personal responsibility. What if the old moral system suddenly falls away? When someone spent years answering many moral questions through one source: ‘Jehovah says this is good.’ or: ‘Jehovah says this is wrong.’ losing faith can be temporarily confusing. ‘If I no longer see that authority as absolute, how do I determine what is right?’ That does not mean someone has no conscience. It means they have to reorganize their moral system. Many values may simply remain: honesty, loyalty, care for children, respect, not stealing, taking responsibility. But the reason becomes more personal: ‘This matters because I understand which value I am protecting by doing it.’ And then there is the identity crisis on top of that Leaving does not only affect behavior. It can also affect the question: ‘Who am I, really?’ Within a close-knit faith community, there is a strong shared identity: we have the truth. we serve Jehovah. we are brothers and sisters. we do not belong to the world. we know where life is heading. When someone leaves that framework, not only certain rules disappear. The shared story about who someone is can also change. Then sometimes two processes have to happen at the same time: ‘Where are my boundaries?’ and: ‘Who am I without this group?’ From group identity to personal identity A group identity is not automatically something negative. Everyone derives identity from groups: family, nationality, work, culture, religion, sports, or friends. But the larger the share of one group in your social and moral identity, the more disruptive leaving can be. In the past the answer was often: ‘That’s how we do things.’ Later it becomes: ‘But how do I do it?’ Then questions arise that previously may hardly have needed a personal answer: What do I think about relationships? What does loyalty mean to me? What do I want with sexuality? What is spirituality to me? Which people suit me? What do I want to do with my free time? Which parts of my former identity do I want to keep? Who do I want to be when no one tells me who I am supposed to be? Making a mistake at forty feels different from making one at eighteen A young adult who has an awkward first relationship is among many peers who are also still learning. A forty-year-old who, after decades of marriage and religious rules, starts dating freely for the first time may think: ‘Why do I not know how this works?’ But a lack of experience in one area of life does not mean someone is immature. You can be very mature and still be a beginner. That can explain why some former members say: ‘I had to learn things that others had already learned twenty years earlier.’ Not only freedom, but also loss There is another factor as well. Leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses can, for some people, involve loss of: family contact, friends, community, daily structure, future outlook, and identity. Research among former Jehovah’s Witnesses describes, among other things, identity change, loss of connection, and grief over living family members. That means new behavior does not always come only from: ‘At last, everything is allowed.’ Sometimes it is also driven by: ‘I do not want to feel how alone I am.’ ‘I want to belong somewhere.’ ‘I want to reinvent myself.’ ‘I do not want to think for a while.’ When experimenting becomes numbing Therefore there is a difference between: experimenting and: numbing. Going to a festival because you want to experience music and freedom is something different from using substances every weekend because silence is unbearable. Exploring sexuality is different from constantly seeking sexual validation because you feel worthless. Drinking too much a few times is not the same as using alcohol structurally to suppress grief. When behavior is used primarily to avoid feeling pain, shame, emptiness, or loneliness, getting help may become important. Self-destructive behavior Some people can develop self-destructive behavior in such a transitional phase. That is not specific to former Jehovah’s Witnesses. It can occur with many forms of loss, trauma, identity issues, or dysregulation. Self-destructive behavior can for example include: excessive substance use, dangerous sexual situations, repeatedly entering unhealthy relationships, serious self-neglect, or repeatedly making choices that a person knows will harm them. Then the relevant question is not: ‘Does this prove I should never have left the organization?’ but: ‘What am I trying to solve, feel, or precisely not feel with this behavior?’ Self-destruction does not prove the old doctrine was true Suppose someone really gets into trouble after leaving. Drugs. Alcohol. Debts. Unhealthy relationships. Then that problem is real and does not need to be romanticized as ‘freedom’. But it also does not automatically prove: ‘See, without Jehovah things always go wrong.’ An individual life path can be influenced by many factors: loss, mental health, social support, personality, financial problems, previous experiences, substance use, and lack of a stable network. The question why someone goes off the rails is more important than using their story as proof for a general worldview. The prodigal son Within Jehovah’s Witness publications, the parable of the prodigal son is used in connection with people who have drifted spiritually or left the congregation. Publications have also described life stories of people who, outside the organization, became involved in among other things drug use, crime, alcohol abuse, or sexual immorality and later returned. From the perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a clear message in that: Jehovah’s standards protect, and what may seem like freedom can in practice have painful consequences. For an active Jehovah’s Witness, such a story can reinforce why it is important to stay close to Jehovah and the congregation. The world as a warning Within Jehovah’s Witness teaching, there is also warning about the harmful influence of ‘the world’ and bad association. A young person can learn that certain attractive possibilities outside the congregation can ultimately cause spiritual or moral damage. That is why visible risky behavior by someone who leaves can easily be interpreted as: ‘This is exactly what we were warned about.’ But the same behavior can be explained in different ways Suppose: someone leaves the congregation. A year later he goes out a lot, smokes, drinks, and has several relationships. A family member in the faith may think: ‘See what the world does.’ The person himself may later say: ‘For the first time I had to discover where my own boundaries were.’ A psychologist may additionally ask: ‘Did loss, autonomy, identity development, or reactance play a role?’ It is the same behavior. The explanations differ. That does not mean every explanation fits every person equally well. It means that one visible behavior does not automatically have only one cause. Confirmation bias Here, confirmation bias can also play a role. People mainly notice examples that fit what they already expect. When an ex-JW runs into serious trouble: ‘See?’ A former member who quietly keeps a job, builds a stable relationship, hardly drinks, and lives responsibly attracts less attention. Conversely, an ex-JW may want to see only stories of people who became happier after leaving and dismiss problems in others. A balanced approach takes both into account. JW publications also give a broader picture It would be incorrect to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses explain every departure as a desire for sex, drugs, or a wild life. In publications about inactive ones, other circumstances are also mentioned, such as serious personal problems, work pressure, discouragement, health problems, or hurt feelings. That is why the picture in their own literature is broader. At the same time, the warning about the dangers of ‘the world’ and the prodigal-son motif do indeed exist alongside that broader picture. ‘Strict parents create wild kids’ The statement sounds appealing because it suggests a simple connection: the stricter the upbringing, the wilder the child later on. It’s not that simple. Many children raised strictly are not ‘wild’ at all. And many people who live risky lives were not raised strictly. What research does support is that psychological control, little autonomy, and harsh parenting can on average be linked to less favorable developmental outcomes. That is something different from saying that rules are harmful. Boundaries, involvement, and structure can actually be protective. The real question is: does a child learn only to obey, or do they also increasingly learn to understand and self-regulate? From obedience to self-regulation That difference becomes visible after leaving. When someone has mainly learned: ‘I don’t do this because it’s forbidden’ the reason can disappear as soon as the external rule falls away. When someone has also learned: ‘I don’t do this because I understand what this choice can do to me and others’ the boundary may still hold, even when the religious authority disappears. That is why self-regulation is so important. Not just knowing where the line is. But understanding why you want to keep it yourself. Sexuality makes that clearly visible The old rule can be simple: no sex before marriage. If that rule is no longer accepted, much more complex questions come in its place: When do I want sex? What does consent mean? How do I protect myself from STIs or an unwanted pregnancy? How important is emotional connection to me? What do I do if the other person wants more than I do? What does exclusivity mean? When does something feel right afterward, or not? A simple external boundary is replaced by a personal moral judgment. That takes practice. The same applies to alcohol and drugs The question changes from: ‘Is it allowed?’ to: ‘What does this do to me?’ ‘Why am I using this?’ ‘Can I stop when I want to?’ ‘Am I using it for pleasure or to numb my feelings?’ ‘Which risks am I not willing to accept?’ A self-chosen boundary can ultimately become stronger precisely because someone understands why they have it. You don’t have to prove your freedom A key message can therefore be: You do not have to do anything that used to be forbidden in order to prove you are free. Freedom also means being able to say: ‘I’m allowed to do this, but I don’t want to.’ Or: ‘I tried it and it doesn’t fit me.’ Or: ‘I thought I wanted this because it used to be forbidden, but actually it does nothing for me.’ That is not a step back into control. It is information about yourself. A mistake is not proof that your whole choice was wrong After leaving, someone who makes a bad choice can easily fall into black-and-white thinking: ‘See? I can’t handle life outside the organization.’ Or the opposite: ‘Now I’m free, so nobody may judge my behavior.’ Between those extremes lies a more mature possibility: ‘I made a choice that wasn’t good for me. What can I learn from this?’ Everyone makes mistakes. The question is what you do afterward. A new social network is important Freedom and identity also develop in relation to others. When someone loses almost their entire social network, the first new friend group can have an exceptionally strong influence. That is why it can help not to let one new group determine your entire identity right away. Work. Sport. Study. Volunteering. Hobbies. Neighborhood contacts. Fellow sufferers. Different social worlds offer different perspectives and can help you discover who you are outside one all-encompassing group identity. ‘The world’ turns out not to be one kind of person After leaving, the image of ‘the world’ can also change. Outside Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is no uniform lifestyle. Some people drink a lot. Others do not at all. Some have many changing relationships. Others live monogamously for decades. Some use drugs. Others have never been interested in them. Some people live selfishly. Other non-religious people devote a large part of their lives to care, volunteering, or family. The choice is therefore not: Jehovah’s Witnesses or a life without boundaries. There are countless ways to live a stable and responsible life outside the organization. Recovery is more than ‘being free’ Recovery after leaving can therefore mean: building your own identity. Developing a personal value system. Learning where your physical and emotional boundaries lie. Learning to say no. Taking responsibility without external religious control. Making mistakes without declaring yourself worthless. Discovering that something doesn’t suit you, even if it is now allowed. Learning to trust that you can make moral decisions yourself. For active Jehovah’s Witnesses An active Jehovah’s Witness may rightly point to people who, after leaving, made choices they later regretted. Those stories exist. From his perspective, he may recognize the protective value of Bible standards in that. This article does not need to decide that faith interpretation for him. It does, however, add other questions: Can loss, delayed autonomy, identity development, and having to relearn your own boundaries also play a role? And can the same visible behavior have different causes? For former Jehovah’s Witnesses A former member, on the other hand, does not need to excuse every behavior just because it is called freedom. You can be critical of your former system and at the same time be critical of yourself: Am I drinking because I really enjoy this, or because I’m trying to numb something? Do I truly want this relationship? Do I respect my own boundaries? Am I building my own life, or mainly doing the opposite of what I did before? Which choices suit the person I want to become? Those are not Jehovah’s Witness questions. They are adult human questions. When professional help can be useful When the transition is accompanied by serious substance use, dangerous behavior, depression, self-destructive tendencies, recurring unhealthy relationships, or the feeling that you no longer know who you are at all, professional help can be beneficial. A counselor can help with: identity, grief, impulse control, self-image, boundaries, addiction, relationships, and building a personal value system. The counselor does not need to determine whether the former faith was true or false. The goal can be: ‘How do you want to consciously shape your life now?’ Questions to think about Which things did I barely have to judge for myself before because there was already a religious rule for them? Which experiences did I only have later in life? Are there things I especially wanted to do because they were forbidden before? Which of those truly suit me? Which old boundaries do I want to keep, but now for my own reasons? Where may I have gone from one extreme to the other? Do I only know that something used to be forbidden, or do I now understand for myself why I do or do not want to set a boundary around it? Do I sometimes use alcohol, sex, going out, or other stimuli to avoid feeling grief or emptiness? Can I set boundaries for myself without feeling like I’m being controlled again? What role does my need to finally be free play? Who am I if I no longer think only in terms of ‘we Jehovah’s Witnesses’ and ‘the world’? Which traits and values do I want to recognize in myself in five years’ time? Which mistakes can I see as information instead of proof that I have failed? What does freedom look like when it no longer means only ‘no one tells me what to do anymore,’ but also ‘I know why I make my own choices’? Summary Some former Jehovah’s Witnesses describe a period after leaving that feels like a second puberty . This is not an official psychological diagnosis, and certainly not an experience every ex-JW has. It has also not been shown that former Jehovah’s Witnesses as a group make more mistakes than people who were never Jehovah’s Witnesses. Still, various psychological processes can help explain why some people, after a highly regulated life, temporarily experiment a great deal. For the first time, they may have to figure out at length where their own boundaries lie. Certain aspects of identity development are explored later. Old external rules sometimes lose their authority faster than new personal values can be built. Psychological reactance can also play a role. And leaving can at the same time mean losing family, community, security, and identity. Within Jehovah’s Witnesses, warnings about the dangers of ‘the world’ have long existed, along with publications comparing those who went astray to the prodigal son or to those who return after risky behavior. These experiences do exist and, from the standpoint of faith, can be seen as confirmation of the protective effect of Bible-based standards. But they do not prove that someone who leaves Jehovah’s Witnesses will necessarily go off the rails. Another possibility is that some people after leaving first have to learn what others have been able to practice more gradually: carrying their freedom themselves. Not just: ‘No one tells me anymore that this is not allowed.’ but eventually: ‘I am increasingly learning who I am, what matters to me, and which boundaries I want to protect myself.’ ‘If no one tells me anymore what is and isn’t allowed, can I learn to trust my own boundaries — not from fear, but from the person I want to be?’ Sources Jehovah’s Witnesses - own publications JW.org / Watchtower Online Library - How Can You Help a ‘Prodigal Son’? - The Watchtower, October 1, 2001 Watchtower Online Library - publications about the parable of the prodigal son, ‘the world,’ and bad associations JW.org - ‘I Will Search for My Sheep Myself’ - The Watchtower, Study Edition, June 2020 JW.org / Watchtower Online Library - articles about inactive ones and people returning to the congregation JW.org / Watchtower Online Library - life stories of people who returned after a period outside the congregation Psychology and development Edward L. Deci & Richard M. Ryan - Self-Determination Theory; autonomy, self-regulation, and internalization Van Petegem, Soenens, Vansteenkiste & Beyers - research on reactance and oppositional behavior in adolescents Martin Pinquart - meta-analytic research on parenting styles and internalizing and externalizing behavior Henri Tajfel & John Turner - Social Identity Theory Research on religious identity development and exploration among young adults from highly religious environments Ransom, Monk and colleagues - research on identity change, social loss, and recovery among former Jehovah’s Witnesses Also see in A-Z Psychology Glossary G - Group identity - How can membership in a group become part of who you are? G - Conscience - How does your inner sense of right and wrong develop, and whose standards shape it? I - Internalization - How do rules and beliefs from outside become part of your own inner voice? P - Psychological reactance - Why can restrictions on freedom דווקא trigger the urge to do something anyway? S - Social influence - How do others influence our choices without any direct coercion being necessary? S - Socialization - How do we learn from an early age which norms apply within our environment? Also read on ExJW.World G - Faith upbringing - How do faith and standards become part of development from an early age? V - Free will - How free is a choice when conviction, social consequences, and conscience all play a role? W - Worldly - What does the contrast between ‘the truth’ and ‘the world’ do to the way people and choices are judged? Recovery - Social rebuilding after the congregation - How do you rebuild a network, identity, and daily life after leaving?