Baptized persons who have not associated for some

by zev 4 Replies latest jw friends

  • zev
    zev

    here is something to think about.
    zev

    "PAY ATTENTION TO YOURSELVES AND TO ALL THE FLOCK"
    UNIT 5 (a)
    Overseers
    'Ruling for Justice Itself'

    (pages 99/100)

    Baptized persons who have not associated for some time.

    If you learn of serious wrongdoing on the part of such a
    person, the matter should be investigated if it poses a
    threat to the congregation's cleanness and welfare or caus-
    es a public scandal.

    Consider the following:

    Does he still profess to be a Witness?

    Is he generally recognized as such in the congrega-
    tion and/or the community?

    Does the person have a measure of contact or
    association with the congregation so that a leaven-
    ing, or corrupting, influence exists?

    How did the matter become known to the elders?

    Is the person willing to meet with a committee,
    thus admitting accountability to the Christian con-
    gregation?

    Depending upon length of inactivity and other factors
    suggested above, elders may determine to hold the
    matter in abeyance.

    In such a case, a record of the person's questionable
    conduct should be made for the congregation file so
    that everything noted might be clarified when the
    person shows interest in becoming active again.

    If the sinful conduct is known only to believing family
    members and no congregation action is taken because
    of the factors outlined above, believing relatives will
    likely determine to curtail family association severely,
    viewing the relative as bad association. ( I Cor. 15:33)

    If the individual still professes to be a Witness and is
    willing to meet with the judicial committee, the matter
    should be handled in the normal way. However, when
    factors such as possible legal action exist, it is best to
    consult the Society before proceeding. (w87 9/1 p. 14)

    If individuals Persist in "walking, disorderly" in serious
    violation of well-established Bible principles, but not yet
    to a degree warranting judicial action, they may be
    marked by members of the congregation. (2 Thess. 3:
    6, 14, 15; w85 4/15 pp. 30-1; om pp. 152-3)

    However, this would occur only after repeated efforts to
    provide authoritative Scriptural counsel and admonition
    have been ignored and in many cases after a warning talk
    has been given to the congregation. (w85 4/15 pp. 30-1;
    w81 9/1 pp. 19-21 )

    If a person who has been marked continues his wrongful
    course in brazen defiance of Christian standards, ada-
    mantly rejecting loving Scriptural counsel, judicial action
    may be taken if the situation becomes scandalous loose
    conduct.

  • freedom96
    freedom96

    Willing to meet with the committee thus admitting accountability with the congregation?

    .............Interesting.

  • zev
    zev

    concerning the article referenced above....

    here is the article, partially quoted:

    *** w87 9/1 14 "A Time to Speak"-When? ***
    If Mary had reported first to the body of elders, they would have been faced with a similar decision. How would they handle confidential information coming into their possession? They would have had to make a decision based on what they felt Jehovah and his Word required of them as shepherds of the flock. If the report involved a baptized Christian who was actively associated with the congregation, they would have had to weigh the evidence as did Mary in determining if they should proceed further. If they decided that there was a strong possibility that a condition of leaven existed in the congregation, they might have chosen to assign a judicial committee to look into the matter. (Galatians 5:9, 10) If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovahs Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness.

    zev

  • CornerStone
    CornerStone

    Willing to meet with the committee thus admitting accountability with the congregation?

    Hmm.., Just as Freedom96 stated,... Interesting,

    If the org is claiming jw's have "a measure" of accountibility to the congregation, and by extension - the society, then that should work the other way around.

    Jw's support the local congregation, and the society as a whole ( world wide preaching work, quick builds, mortgage payments, co visits, etc,..) then the congregation should support elderly jw's, provide loans and "gifts" to it's people, have food programes, after school and child care programs, and any number of social works supporting the congregation members.

    Mabey there is some bright lawyer out there aware of a similar case that's gone to court.

    CornerStone

  • searcher
    searcher

    Willing to meet with the committee thus admitting accountability with the congregation?

    Sounds classic to me.

    Meet with them and you are a member of the cong. and can be ' judged'.

    Do not meet with them and you are admiting that you are no longer part of the cong, and you will be DF'd.

    Win Win situation for them.

    Lose Lose situation for you.

    searcher.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit