pre 1981 Disassociation rules.

Aussie Oz

Can anybody point me to actual written society instruction pre 1981, regarding not shunning DA ones?

I know they included shunning as of the WT sept 15 1981, but was before that time purely an unwritten practice or what?

Oz

blondie

*** w81 9/15 p. 23 Disfellowshiping—How to View It ***

THOSE WHO DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES

13 A Christian might grow spiritually weak, perhaps because of not studying God’s Word regularly, having personal problems or experiencing persecution. (1 Cor. 11:30; Rom. 14:1) Such a one might cease to attend Christian meetings. What is to be done? Recall that the apostles abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. Yet Christ had urged Peter, “When once you have returned, strengthen your brothers [who also abandoned Jesus].” (Luke 22:32) Hence, out of love Christian elders and others might visit and help the one who has grown weak and inactive. (1 Thess. 5:14; Rom. 15:1; Heb. 12:12, 13) It is another matter, though, when a person repudiates his being a Christian and disassociates himself.

14 One who has been a true Christian might renounce the way of the truth, stating that he no longer considers himself to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or wants to be known as one. When this rare event occurs, the person is renouncing his standing as a Christian, deliberately disassociating himself from the congregation. The apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.”—1 John 2:19.

15 Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

16 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.

---------------

The WTS did change how unbaptized publishers (approved associates) were treated. Up until 1988 they were treated as if df'd. But then in 1988 that was changed (legal reasons).

*** 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 isbaptized. (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.

? In view of Titus 1:6, must a man’s children all be baptized if he is to qualify to be an elder in the congregation?

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 The Watchtower of February 15, 1972, page 126.

Poztate

Blondie... Thanks again for this information on DA's and the "new light" on approved associates.

Years ago...many years ago the "approved associates" issue was one of the reasons I signed up at JWD...JWN

I thanked you then and thank you once again....

Aussie Oz

Thankyou blondie, didnt know of the change re unbaptized ones in 89.

but no written instructions that said one could still talk to a DA person up to that 1981 WT?

OZ

lisaBObeesa

but no written instructions that said one could still talk to a DA person up to that 1981 WT?

I'm curious about this too...

Steel

Bump

When I was studying with my Uber elder he would site the example of jehovah witnesses in the concentration camps in ww2 and all they would have to do was sign a letter and they were free to leave.

Seems odd that a religion of such devoted faith would basically have to blackmail it's members into not quitting today.

How many people walked after 1975 and seems odd just a few years later they would close the backdoor.

btlc

I see that original question was never answered, so there is some articles, I took some lines out:

The Watchtower, August 1, 1972, pg 467 "disfellowshiped ... to be treated as an outsider"
The Watchtower, August 1, 1974, pg 464 "this does not require our treating such a one as an enemy or refusing to show common courtesy and consideration."

Bonnie_Clyde

I'm almost certain that Ray Franz wrote the August 1, 1974, article about showing "common courtesy and consideration." I remember we had drywall man who was working on our house back in 1979. My father (a super elder) was talking to him and found out he was disfellowshipped. It didn't phase him a bit, he just commented to me later that we just couldn't talk about anything spiritual. The rules changed in 1981.

cobweb

I was just looking for the pre 1981 policy on how to treat those who wrote a letter of disassociation. I came across this thread but i can't see that the question is really answered. Was there never a watchtower that stated the policy? What about an old elders manual, is there a pre 1981 elders manual available anywhere?

stillin

One of the elders in this congregation actually called the Service Desk to ask whether the new understanding would apply retroactively. He felt that the "rules" which were in place at the time of a person's DA should apply. He wanted, also, to go on shunning a person who had been an "approved associate" and had stepped away from the religion. Pharisees.

pre 1981 Disassociation rules.

Share this