When Family Belonging Becomes Conditional

I was a committed Jehovah’s Witness for most of my adult life. I pioneered for approximately 25 years and served as an elder for 12 years. During that time, I participated in judicial proceedings, including disfellowshipping decisions.

I believed I was upholding God’s standards and protecting the congregation. Shunning was presented as a loving but firm spiritual measure. I enforced it and reassured families that withholding contact was an expression of loyalty to God.

Over time, I began to observe the psychological and relational consequences more clearly — including within my own extended family. My niece was baptized at approximately 12 years old. As she grew older, she began to experience conflict between her sexual orientation and the expectations of the religion.

When she was around 18, she was cut off from portions of our family due to religious disciplinary action. The separation was framed as spiritually necessary. At that stage of development — late adolescence — she faced both identity formation and the loss of family support simultaneously. The message communicated to her was that full restoration of family relationships depended on religious conformity.

During this period, she experienced significant emotional distress, including suicidal ideation. Within the religious framework, her distress was often viewed as secondary to the issue of obedience and repentance. The emphasis remained on her returning to religious standards rather than addressing the underlying mental health crisis.

From my former position as an elder, I now recognize how the structure functions. The policy does not rely on physical force. It relies on attachment bonds. Access to family becomes contingent on compliance.

In cases involving sexual orientation, the individual faces a double bind:
• Suppress or deny identity in order to maintain belonging
• Or accept relational separation in order to live authentically

Additionally, childhood baptism creates a situation where a minor makes a binding religious commitment, but later withdrawal carries adult-level relational consequences.

Looking back, I see harm operating at multiple levels:

Psychological harm to those shunned.
Developmental impact when shunning occurs during adolescence.
Moral injury experienced by those tasked with enforcing the policy.
This account is not written in anger but as documentation from someone who once administered the system and later witnessed its effects firsthand. My purpose in sharing this is to contribute to a clearer understanding of how religious shunning functions in practice — particularly where sexual orientation and early baptism intersect with family separation.