Can shunning or marking extend to the un-baptized?

by Fatfreek 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Fatfreek

  I have a non JW friend who has a JW sister. They were both raised JW. While he is not shunned he feels alienated because of his refusal to accept their “truths”. He tells me that he will never get baptized because of their shunning policy.

  Nevertheless, he misses the family bonding.

  In an effort to get closer to her and their family he has started to attend a few meetings and has even started a home Bible study. He is currently experiencing the “love bombing” that new ones report and his family is accepting him.

  I tell him I think their acceptance is conditional, that they sense they have a fish on the hook and that unless he continues to progress they will begin to distance themselves.

  He is a widower and has recently begun dating. I tell him that once it becomes obvious to congregation members that he is not as chaste as they’d like, there may be some kind of “marking” announced despite the fact that he is not baptized.

  I say “may be” since I’m not sure about this point.

  What do you think?

  Fats
• 

  Pubsinger

  you are right. Marking as opposed to shunning.

  He would probably find himself tolerated at public meetings where they could "encourage" him. But they wouldn't extend their fellowship beyond that.

  If he was blatant and open in his actions there may even be a "local needs" item on "the dangers of associating with non-baptised fornicators (mentioning no names)!!!"
• 

  Wasanelder Once

  Attention:

  Only people who are baptized can be DF'd or officially marked. This cannot be done to "Unbelievers". Though some witnesses may choose not to associate with a bible student who is not making progress in accepting the moral standards they adhere to, there would not be a "local" needs talk on the individual. Now, if the person were,pretending to be interested and was soliciting congregation members for sex, drug use. or trying to engage in some wierd business that might prey on the "Flock" a local needs might be given on that, but that would be very rare.

  That's why you don't want to ever join the club, even to make family happy. Then they have your life in thier hands.

  W.Once
• 

  BluesBrother

  Depends whether he ever becomes an "unbaptized publisher or not. If not then the cong. can take no action although the interest of the dubs and love bombing will wane.

  If he ever gets to be an unbaptized pub. , the latest "Organization Book" says, page 152.

  If an unbaptized publisher 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 "..................... is no longer an unbaptized publisher " The congregation will then view him as a person of the world . Although the offender is not disfellowshipped , Christians exercise caution with regard to any association with him.
• 

  Black Sheep

  While he is not shunned he feels alienated because of his refusal to accept their “truths”.

  Yes, that's me.

  Nevertheless, he misses the family bonding.

  That's me too, but getting baptised would be the worst mistake I could ever make. The 'bonding' ends as soon as your relationship with the WT turns to s#!t.
• 

  mama1119

  My friend was and unbaptized publisher, and when she got older and decided it was not for her, they announced her as no longer a publisher, and she is now shunned as a result, even thouh she never was baptized.
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  I've seen it happen, FF. My oldest son was announced as DA'd, even though he had been an unbaptised publisher in the cong at the time. This was back in the early 80's, though. They may have changed that tactic to just marking via the rumor mill now.
• 

  greendawn

  I can recall many posters saying that unbaptised publishers did get marked and kept at an arm's length, apparently they thik of them as incapable of progressing in the JW way and possible bad influences.
• 

  Forscher

  Here is a question from the readers on this very subject. As far as I know it still represents a comprehensive view of the WTBTS' position on the issue.
  
  

  *** 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. The Watchtower 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, The Watchtower 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.

  I posted elsewhere that this was a change in policy. Prior to 1988-89 one who was announced as an "unapproved associate" was to be treated exactly like any DA'd or DF'd person. Current policy does not support a total shunning, though many in the congregation would likely do so anyway. It is sort of their way of showing they are more righteous than others.
  
  Forscher
• 

  littlerockguy

  Back in the early 80s before I was baptized, it was their policy to formally "disassociate" (disfellowship) nonbaptized publishers if they engaged in conduct that would warrant disfellowshipping in baptized JWs so back then it didn't matter if you were baptized or not. They changed the policy after I was baptized in 1987. BTW, been wondering where you been fats. Good to see you again :) LRG