PIMO: physically in, mentally out, to keep their family
UnrefutedNo good counter-argument has been published by the Watchtower.
There is no quiet way out
Since The Watchtower of September 15, 1981 (pp. 23, 25), a person who formally resigns is treated exactly like one who was expelled.
That means total shunning. The article warned that even a simple hello can be the first step.
What happens if you just drift
Someone who fades quietly keeps their family only while they avoid anything elders read as resignation by conduct. Joining another church counts.
Celebrating Christmas counts. Disagreeing in public counts.
Any of them can trigger the announcement without the person's consent.
The people this creates
There is a known group called PIMO members: physically in, mentally out. They attend meetings and turn in field service time for one reason.
It keeps their husbands, wives, children and parents. Large surveys of ex-members record it.
So did the Australian Royal Commission. It found that a doubter, or a victim, must choose between conscience and their whole family.
It called the effect on abuse survivors especially cruel.
Their answer, at full strength
Baptism is a public vow. Someone who breaks it on purpose has made a weighty choice, and the congregation may mark it.
They cite 1 John 2:19: they went out from us because they were not of our sort. Members who simply go quiet are not shunned.
Elders are told to treat them as sheep to be helped. Millions of inactive Witnesses keep their family ties.
As for the Commission, they say a church may govern its own fellowship. A court agreed in Paul v.
Watchtower.
How strong is this argument?
Strong for you. The 1981 policy is documented, and so are the triggers in the elders' manual.
The Commission made formal findings. Paul v.
Watchtower puts it in a court record: a member who resigned was shunned under policy. The church won on First Amendment grounds.
That is about what is legal, not what is true. And the "faders are fine" defense holds only while the fader keeps performing.
That is the trap. It also inflates every figure they publish.
What to say
"If someone quietly stopped believing, what would it cost them to say so out loud?"
How they answer this — at its strongest
Baptism is a public vow, and members who simply go quiet are not shunned.
The Witness defense is that baptism is a public vow. One who breaks it on purpose has made a weighty choice. That is more than simply going quiet, and the congregation may mark it. They cite 1 John 2:19, 'they went out from us because they were not of our sort.'
Members who merely drift are not shunned. Elders are told to treat them as sheep to be helped. Millions of inactive Witnesses keep their family ties.
As for the Royal Commission, they say its criticisms touch matters courts should not govern. A church may rule its own fellowship. That is what Paul v. Watchtower held.
The verdict
Strong for you. The 'faders are fine' defense holds only while they keep performing.
The 1981 policy text is documented, and so are the triggers in the elders' manual. The Royal Commission made formal findings on the cost of leaving.
Paul v. Watchtower puts it in a court record. A member who resigned was shunned under policy. The church won on First Amendment grounds. That settles what is legal, not what is true.
The 'faders are fine' defense holds only while the fader keeps up enough show to avoid a trigger. That is the PIMO trap itself. Graded unrefuted rather than admitted, because they dispute the wording, not the documents.
Sources
- jwfacts — Quotes on disfellowshipping and disassociation
- ARC Report of Case Study 29 (2016) — findings on shunning and exit (PDF)
- Paul v. Watchtower (9th Cir. 1987) — shunning of a resigned member, court record
- 4Jehovah — Do JWs shun family members who leave?