Baptism Nullification

by David Gladden 10 Replies latest jw friends

  • David Gladden
    David Gladden

    Several years ago I sent a letter to the elders of the congregation I was in notifying them that I no longer wished to be associated with the organization. Over time my brother has moved up the ranks and has recently come across an interesting piece of information regarding my “case”. It turns out that the elders never filed my disassociation papers and never formally disassociated me. I am treated by others as though I am disassociated, shunning and all, but I am not “legally” disassociated. I’m just “inactive” and a “special case”.

    Getting to my point, would this be a good opportunity for me to demand that my baptism be nullified? Before I left the org I explained to a judicial committee that I never really believed in god and that I was just “playing along” to keep my family and friends happy. Simply put, I’m an atheist and have never been convinced of the existence of the supernatural or deities. During my JC they mentioned the possibility of nullification but said, “I don’t think that would be necessary”.

    Does anyone have experience with nullification and any side effects it might have? Should I continue in the technical state of “inactive” or demand that I be formally and legally disassociated.

    DG

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    David,

    This is an interesting point. I was baptised at age 12 in New York to keep my family happy, you know, how wonderful to be baptised at the Yankee Stadium bash, that sort of thing.

    A while back, an elder who was privy to my DF'ing info, told me that, because my baptism was invalid, I would have to serve only a month sat on my own at the KH before I was re-instated.

    Frightening isn't it? Only one month away from dub-dom. Yuk.

    Englishman.

    Bring on the dancing girls!

  • Seeker4
    Seeker4

    You bring up an interesting dilemma. While an individual can be rebaptized if they conclude that their original baptism was invalid, I have never heard of any provision for a baptism officially being viewed as nullified. When I was an elder we had a few instances where this SHOULD have been done, but it just isn't in the WTS vocabulary at this point.

    Any other elders have any thoughts on this? There were cases where it was obvious that individuals who were baptized did so at too young an age or who were mentally unstable - yet the only way of dealing with these folks was disfellowshipping or something similar. How pathetic.

    S4

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    David,

    This all seems rather acedemic.
    You have stated your wish to be d/a - the congregation concur with this and the brothers avoid you.
    If your baptism meant nothing to you, then it meant nothing to God either. There is nothing to nullify, and you cannot erase the fact that it did take place
    I see no reason to dignify the beurocrocy of a rule bound organization by requesting anything further of them. Let it lie.

  • metatron
    metatron

    I can't agree that nullification is something the Society
    commonly allows. I think it is extremely rare.
    They take the view that anyone who got baptized thereby made a
    claim of being a dedicated Witness and suffers the df'ing
    consequences accordingly.

    It would be hard to believe that nullification would be anything
    but very rare for a simple reason. If they allowed it to any degree,
    they would be swamped with reversed disfellowshippings because
    so many baptisms of Witness teenagers are phoney. The kids are
    masturbating/fornicating/smoking/etc. in secret and get dunked
    to get their parents off their backs.

    metatron

  • David Gladden
    David Gladden

    To help clarify my reasoning... I agree that it is pure academics and legal theory, which is the very reason why I am curious about it. My line of thinking is: If my baptism is nullified and therefore never “really” happened, then I cannot be DA’ed or DF’ed. Restrictions would be limited to those of a “worldly” person, or am I interpreting Org Law to strictly?

    Being that my DA never “legally” happened, there is an opportunity here for me to take advantage of. I played the game for years to keep the observers happy... I am willing to do it again for a JC or two in order to lighten the load off my family. Bottom line, it is all rules, politics and smoke and mirrors – I’m willing to play if it will benefit me.

    My primary objective is to make sure I am no longer part of the Org and get as many benefits as possible.

  • Francois
    Francois

    A personal aside if you don't mind. David, what part of the country are you from, if you don't mind my asking? My first girlfriend was named Gladden and I've never seen it anywhere else.

    Francois

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    Actually, legally, this would be a dream-come-true for the Watchtower if they were SMART.

    They could get all of us "apostates" off of their back simply by nullifying the baptisms of any who request it and publishing an article stating that all annullees are to be treated the same way as all other worldly people.

    This would save them time and money in courts and less people would be angry about it and be after them.

    Maybe someone could suggest it???

  • sunscapes
    sunscapes

    Then you could re-baptize everybody and start a new religion. Ugh.

    Excerpt from the Proclaimers book, page 150 is very interesting,

    From the 16th century onward, this situation posed a problem for the Reformers. Since the name Christian was being used so loosely, how could they distinguish themselves from others who claimed to be Christians?

    Often they simply acquiesced to the use of a derisive nickname given to them by their enemies. Thus theological oppoonents of Martin Luther, in Germany, were the ones that first applied his name to his followers, calling them Lutherans. Those associated with John Wesley, in England, were labeled Methodists because they were unusually precise and methodical in the observance of religious duties. Baptists at first resisted the name Anabaptist (meaning "Rebaptizer") but gradually adopted the name Baptist as a sort of compromise.


    The article goes on to explain the many names given to the International Association of Bible Students in those days, namely, "Russelites", "Rutherfordites", "Millennial Dawnists", "Watch Tower People" and the like.

    The situation today of wanting to annul a baptism to join the Watchtower Society is not unlike that already that has taken place in sectarian religious history. Note the Anabaptists and the Reformers from which Russell based many of the early doctrinal format.

  • messenger
    messenger

    Here ya go. Re-baptizm can be as a result of not being spiritually clean at the time of baptism. This was given to me by the sevice department about ten years ago in a case that involved bigamy. We recended the baptism and they had to be re-baptized after clearing up the marriage arrangement.
    *** w62 6/1 332-3 Why Be Baptized? ***
    REBAPTISM NECESSARY?
    11 Due to certain circumstances at the time when they got baptized or due to subsequent developments, some have doubts about the validity of their past dedication and baptism, and they wonder if they should be rebaptized. They may have been baptized at an early age or while they were very immature in the truth, or after baptism they became inactive in the ministry for a time. At the baptism ceremony a talk on baptism is given to make clear what is involved in the matter of dedication and baptism. If one later has some doubts about the validity of his dedication, he should ask himself whether he understood that water baptism symbolized a dedication to do Jehovah’s will and whether he had actually made a dedication to do Jehovah’s will prior to baptism, even though his knowledge of the truth was limited at that time and he may have been gaining accurate knowledge by a Bible study for only a short time. Were the questions at the end of the ceremony answered in the affirmative and with a basic understanding of the significance thereof?
    12 Naturally all should have grown in appreciation of their dedication since symbolizing it by water immersion. Certainly we did not appreciate it fully when we made it, or as fully as we do now. But this does not necessarily mean that we should be rebaptized, even though our immaturity might have later caused a temporary lapse in fulfilling our ministerial responsibilities. But if one submitted to baptism mainly because of emotional factors and without proper understanding, or in order to please one’s parents or others, and if this baptism did not symbolize a prior dedication to do Jehovah’s will, it would be proper to be baptized again. Dedication must come before baptism and not afterward.
    13 Certain personal circumstances existing at the time of baptism would necessitate rebaptism. The psalmist David, in a song of praise to Jehovah, stated: “Who may ascend into the mountain of Jehovah, and who may rise up in his holy place? Anyone innocent in his hands and clean in heart, who has not carried My soul to sheer worthlessness, nor taken an oath deceitfully. He will carry away blessing from Jehovah and righteousness from his God of salvation.” (Ps. 24:3-5) Dedication is a bilateral arrangement. Jehovah is the superior and we are the inferiors. Jehovah makes the terms of dedication; we comply with them. He requires that we first repent, turn from our former unclean practices and present ourselves as clean before him.
    14 We could not imagine Jehovah accepting the dedication of anyone living in an immoral situation or doing at the time of baptism things that would result in his being cut off from Jehovah’s favor by disfellowshiping, if he were already in the Christian congregation. In ordinary business a contract is not valid unless it is signed and sealed properly by all parties concerned. On this principle it would be necessary for a formerly unfit person to be baptized again even though after his former baptism he discontinued these wrongs and made advancement in the truth and service of Jehovah. The first baptism could not symbolize a dedication made under proper circumstances that Jehovah could accept. He should now make a firm resolve to do Jehovah’s will and thus dedicate his life to Jehovah’s service and then submit to baptism at the earliest opportunity. If an unclean situation developed sometime after dedication and baptism, this would not make the dedication invalid. The individual, however, would be subject to appropriate discipline by the organization.
    15 While the one performing the baptism should be a dedicated brother, the baptizer is not the important thing to consider in determining the validity of the baptism. The main question is, Have we heard the dedication discourse arranged by Jehovah’s theocratic organization and have we submitted ourselves to be baptized by one assigned by the organization? It would not be of concern to us later if it was found that the one who did the baptizing or the one who gave the baptism discourse found it necessary for himself to be baptized again. The important thing is the validity of the organization that he represented at the time and by the authorization and appointment of which he performed the water baptism.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit