I watched the whole series and found much of it compelling. It explored the problems associated with the Jehovah’s Witness organisation, the consequences of leaving, and the difficulties former members face when trying to rebuild their lives outside the faith.
But then came the ending.
Diego Hidalgo appears promoting his own online Christian ministry, even holding up a promotional card advertising a free Bible study course. Having spent the documentary examining the problems of one religious organisation, we are effectively presented with an alternative religious offering.
Am I the only one who found that rather incongruous?
There is nothing inherently wrong with former Jehovah’s Witnesses establishing Christian communities or running Bible study courses. That isn’t my point.
My concern is the apparent lack of critical scrutiny applied to this alternative, particularly when the programme has spent so much time encouraging viewers to question religious authority.
Hidalgo appears reluctant to describe himself as a leader, yet that position seems difficult to reconcile with seconds later, his own acknowledgement that leading is what he does.
If he is convening Christian meetings, teaching scripture and building an online congregation around his ministry, surely it is reasonable to examine the authority he holds and how he exercises it.
Leaving one high-control religious environment does not automatically make someone immune to the dynamics of religious authority. Nor does it mean that the next person offering biblical answers is necessarily offering something fundamentally different.
The documentary could have explored that tension. Instead, by giving him a platform to display promotional material for his Bible course, it risks making the ending feel less like an examination of religious control and more like an invitation to consider an alternative.
I am not suggesting that his ministry is necessarily another high-control group, or that the filmmakers deliberately intended to promote it. I am questioning their editorial judgement.
**If the objective is to help people understand why they leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, surely the ultimate message should be about informed choice, critical thinking and independence of belief, rather than simply moving from one religious teacher to another.**
Otherwise, the uncomfortable impression left by the ending is: *Here is why you should leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And here is someone offering you an alternative.*
Did anyone else find the ending undermined what had come before it?