by purplesofa 13 Replies latest jw friends
Another point that might be sort of related: when we used to call unbap pubs "approved associates", and they were dealt with judicially to the point of no longer being approved associates, the cong was to treat them essentially like they were DFed. That's the way it was at the time I'm referring to. I'm glad that arrangement has changed!
Maybe you guys have some info on this, probably from a KM, and when it changed?
Thanks,
purps
Don't have the info when it changed, but I remember it. I had a friend whose daughter was considered a disapproved associate and she totally refused to have anything to do with her. As soon as they changed it, they were together constantly. The daughter hadn't changed one bit, was still into drinking and drugs, hung with some pretty rough people.
The whole episode taught me how insane shunning was. The fact that the crazies in NY say so or not, is all that matters. This mother now has 3 dfd children and won't treat them like she does the daughter that was not baptized. Bizarre behavior-can you say cult?
I don't remember when the arrangement changed, but I remember that the old Oraganized book (OM book) said that unbaptized publishers who were removed were to be treated the same as disfellowshipped people. I brought this to an elder's attention because there were several unbaptized publishers who had been judicially removed but who still associated with the congregation same as before. He told me the arrangment had changed.
Organized to Do Jehovah.s Will
Page 157-158
WHEN UNBAPTIZED PUBLISHERS
ARE WRONGDOERS
What of unbaptized publishers who become involved in
serious wrongdoing? Since they are not baptized members of the
congregation, they cannot be formally disfellowshipped. However,
they may not fully understand the Bible’s standards, and kind
counsel may help them to make straight paths for their feet.
If an unbaptized wrongdoer is unrepentant after two elders
have met with him and have tried to help him, then it is necessary
to inform the congregation. A brief announcement is made, stating:
"[Name of person] is no longer recognized as an unbaptized
publisher." The congregation will then view the wrongdoer as a
person of the world. Although the offender is not disfellowshipped,
Christians exercise caution with regard to any association with
him. (1 Cor. 15:33) No field service reports would be accepted
from him.
In time, an unbaptized person (adult or minor) who was
removed as a publisher may wish to renew his association with the
congregation and become a publisher again. In that situation, two
elders would meet with him and ascertain his spiritual progress. If
he has a good attitude, a Bible study may be held with him. If he
progresses spiritually and eventually qualifies, a brief
announcement can be made, stating: "[Name of person] is again
recognized as an unbap-tized publisher."
This is the new book. The old OM book said that UB Publishers were to be treated as disfellowshipped persons.
thanks,
wonder why the name was changed from unbaptised publisher to approved associate?
Purple the info you are seeking is in the Organized to Accomplish our Ministy book pages 148-149. Under sub-heading "Nonbaptized associates who are wrongdoers"
I don't have a scanner or i would scan it for ya but i will type word for word what it says at end or paragraph. Hopefully someone else can scan it for ya or you find online. This book was copyright in 1983
NONBAPTIZED ASSOCIATES WHO ARE WRONGDOERS
"If a nonbaptized wrongdoer is still unrepentant after a judicial committee has met with him and tried to help him, then it becomes necessary to inform the congregation. A brief announcement is made that the person is no longer recognized as an approved associate. (1 Cor. 15:33) The congregation will then view the wrongdoer as they would view one who has been disfellowshipped. No field servive reports would be accepted from such a person."
That is word for word the last paragraph under that sub-heading. the underline was added by me so you can see where the focus is on your question.
Hope this helps you
StoneWall
This changed some time in the mid-to-late 80's.
If you have a WT-CD, do a search in the Watchtowers in that time rame - I think the change was explained in a study article, something like "Who is Approved by Jehovah?".
I imagine that it, like most every other change in recent history, was motivated by legal considerations. Probably some unbaptized publisher who was "disapproved" threatened legal action, and it may well have stood up since he was not a "member" of the congregation, being unbaptized.
Would be really interesting to see if the change in the baptismal vows occurred in more or less the same time frame.
I think the baptismal vows changed in '86, the year I was baptised.
Actually, I think the questions in the OM book WERE different than the questions at my baptism. Later researching it.
I am sorry I don't have anything to back this up, Not on my computer with WT info on it.
I was DF, I think in '89 or '90, out for nine years and returned. So if the change was made in '86 when I was baptised, it may have taken time for the full effect of the change to take place.
Thanks for all your info.
*** w88 11/15 p. 17 Helping Others to Worship God ***
Previously, an unbaptized person who qualified to share in the field ministry was termed an "approved associate." However, "unbaptized publisher" is a more accurate designation, especially in view of the Biblical indication that God’s approval results from a valid dedication and Christian baptism.
*** w89 2/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***
Does the material on being approved by God mean that Christians may speak to one who once was considered an "approved associate" but later, because of wrongdoing, was to be avoided?Yes, it does. TheWatchtower of November 15, 1988, showed why it is Scriptural to adjust our view of an unbaptized person who shares in the public ministry with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Formerly, such a person was termed an "approved associate." If he thereafter unrepentantly broke God’s laws, the congregation was alerted, and the members would then avoid association and conversation with him.
As the recent material showed, the Bible requires that such disciplinary action be taken in the case of baptized persons who are unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) Yet, the accountability of an unbaptized person who pursues wrongdoing is not the same as that of one who is baptized. (Luke 12:48) He has not been baptized and thus has not become approved in God’s sight, so disfellowshipping is not appropriate in his case. Basically, he is now a worldly person and can be dealt with accordingly.
What, then, of one who was formerly termed an "approved associate" but who is no longer qualified for the public ministry because of his wrong course? Since he is not disfellowshipped, he should be treated as the person of the world that he is. Of course, the November 15 Watchtower advised on page 19 that due caution must be exercised by loyal Christians. These realize that the unbaptized person may well have shared in wrongdoing despite his having knowledge of God’s requirements. Mature Christians must be careful about socializing with such an individual. If questions arise as to the extent of contact that may be had with him, most of these can be resolved by following godly counsel. We can reflect on counsel such as that found at 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Proverbs 13:20 and ask ourselves: ‘What association would I properly have with a person of the world who is not living by Christian standards?’ If the elders see that a worldly person of this sort poses any threat, they can privately offer warning counsel to those in the congregation who seem to be endangered.
In time, an unbaptized person who had been an "approved associate" may give reasonable evidence of repentance, and he may desire to have a Bible study again. (Acts 26:20) He may speak to the elders of the congregation where he now attends, who, if it seems advisable, will arrange for him to have a Bible study. This will apply also if in the future someone is disqualified as an unbaptized publisher and later shows repentance. Usually, he ought to speak to the two elders who dealt with his wrongdoing or the two others whom the body of elders chose to review the matter if he requested that.
Appropriately, TheWatchtower explained that it is somewhat different in the case of parents caring for minor children in the home—those legally dependent minors for whom they are responsible to provide material support. (Ephesians 6:1-4) The Scriptures lay on the parents the obligation to instruct and guide their children. So the parents (or believing parent) may choose to conduct a private Bible study with the erring minor or to include him in the family’s program of Bible study and discussion.
While the recent Watchtower material calls for adjustment in our thinking and dealings, it is done in line with the Scriptures that are beneficial "for disciplining in righteousness."—2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
?
InviewofTitus1:6,mustaman’schildrenallbebaptizedifheistoqualifytobeanelderinthecongregation?In the first chapter of Titus, the apostle Paul outlined qualifications for men serving as congregation elders. One was that a brother be "free from accusation, . . . having believing children."
This could not mean that an elder’s children must all be baptized, for some may be infants. So Titus 1:6 must reasonably mean that a man’s minor children should be baptized or they should be learning Bible truth, accepting and applying it and moving toward baptism, while under family merit. (1 Corinthians 7:14) An elder should be endeavoring to make disciples out of his children, they not being "under a charge of debauchery nor unruly."
We can better appreciate this by noting how the Bible uses the expression "believer." Of course, a person might have faith, or believe, in many things. (Acts 26:27, 28; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 11; James 2:19) But we find "believe" most commonly linked to accepting Christianity and getting baptized. (Acts 8:13; 18:8; compare 19:1-5.) Baptism especially manifests that a person is a believer.—Acts 2:41, 44; 4:4, 32.
Some young children of an elder might not yet be physically, emotionally, or spiritually ready for baptism. Yet, Titus 1:6 describes them as "believing children" if they are progressing toward baptism, in line with their age and situation.
[Footnotes]
If someone in that situation is unaware of this adjusted view, it would be a kindness to refer him to these Watchtower articles.
See also TheWatchtower of February 15, 1972, page 126.
