Is there a 'third' way to leave?

by Splash 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • BluePill2
    BluePill2

    I can answer you as an ex-elder and someone that worked with the service department of several branches.

    This is recognizing that such a thing as fading exists. But as others have pointed, two elders will punch holes, until you say the magic words "I no longer want to associate" and this gets you into hot waters. This will depend on the elders, how well acquainted they are with JW-legalese and if they are uber-zealous nazi-elders that want to "dispose in a clean way" > means: no doubts about anyones position - either they are in or out (DA, DF'd).

    The third way pans out like this:

    - You INSIST that you want to be a Witness, you are just depressed/tired/having difficult times/.....whatever

    - They HAVE to visit you, some will do it multiple times. You have to stay in there (again: depending on the type of elders you're dealing with). The goal is to wear them out - they only have so much time/energy to devote to one single member.

    After a while they will leave you, marked as "weak one". You can show up once in a while. Move to another place.

    But this is no guarantee that you will keep ties to your family members. At least uber-zealous witnesses WILL cut ties with you - EVEN if you are still baptized - technically still a Witness - because you are weak and therefore "bad company" to them. This was the case with some of my relatives. I was still preaching/visiting the Hall, erratically, but they shunned me anyway. So, I went: "All In".

  • blondie
    blondie

    Disassociation is not being inactive; see this article.

    *** w82 1/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

    My son, who was baptized as a teenager, is now married and has a family. Because of the pressure of earning a living he has cooled off spiritually and does not associate with the congregation. Should he be viewed as a “disassociated” person?

    There is nothing in your description that would require such a viewpoint. The question may have arisen because of misunderstanding what it means to be viewed as “disassociated.”

    The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 23, showed that there is a difference between (a) a Christian who becomes spiritually weak and inactive, and (b) a person who clearly renounces his being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, leading the congregation elders to announce that he has “disassociated” himself. It seems that your son fits the first description.

    The Watchtower mentioned that some Christians become weak in faith and spirituality. This occurred also in the first century. (Romans 14:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 11:30) It does not mean that they have ceased to be Christians. Even if they become so weak that they no longer share the “good news” with others and stop attending meetings, and they are not bringing reproach on the Christian congregation, they are still to be regarded as our spiritual brothers and sisters. We should want to help them lovingly, following the apostle Paul’s counsel: “We exhort you, brothers, admonish the disorderly, speak consolingly to the depressed souls, support the weak, be long-suffering toward all.” While the elders often take the lead in this, it is to be noted that this counsel was directed to all “the congregation of the Thessalonians.” (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 5:14) So the elders and others might offer loving help and encouragement, having in mind the advice: “Straighten up the hands that hang down and the enfeebled knees, and keep making straight paths for your feet, that what is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather that it may be healed.”—Hebrews 12:12, 13; Revelation 3:1-3.

    It is quite a different matter with a former Christian who is “disassociated.” This designation is applied basically in two situations:

    First, though it is uncommon, a person might decide that he absolutely no longer wants to be a Witness. We do not mean a person such as is described above, a spiritually weak or discouraged Christian who may express some doubts. Rather, we mean someone who resolutely declares that he absolutely is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since in the past he voluntarily became a baptized member of the congregation, it would now be proper for him to inform the congregation that he is ending this relationship. It would be best if he did this in a brief letter to the elders, but even if he unequivocally states orally that he is renouncing his standing as a Witness, the elders can deal with the matter.—1 John 2:19.

    The second situation involves a person who renounces his standing in the congregation by joining a secular organization whose purpose is contrary to counsel such as that found at Isaiah 2:4, where we read concerning God’s servants: “They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.” Also, as stated at John 17:16, “they are no part of the world, just as I [Jesus] am no part of the world.”—Compare Revelation 19:17-21.

    In either of these two situations, the person by word and/or actions has clearly terminated his status as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, disassociating himself. Hence, the elders will announce briefly to the congregation that this individual has disassociated himself. Those in the congregation will accept the person’s decision and thereafter will view him as a former brother with whom they would not fellowship, in harmony with what we read at 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 John 9-11.

    As can be appreciated, the spiritually weak and inactive son about whom the question was asked has not become a “disassociated” person in either of these two senses and no such announcement has been made in the congregation. So it still may be possible to aid him in the spirit of Romans 15:1: “We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong.”—See also Isaiah 35:3.

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    Real bugbear of mine this one. I hate it when dubs use the "disassociated by their actions" line to justify shunning ones who are not DF'ed or formally DA'ed but simply inactive. An individual JW always has the perogative (rightly or wrongly), as dictated by their conscience, to limit their association with one who is baptised but living the life of a worldly person - however there is no formal scriptual basis for doing so. There's not even a procedual, legalistic WT basis for it either.

    I've called elders out on this and used the above reference as well as the org book to prove it. The CO backed me up on this as well.

    I've also had big discussions about inactive ones being "in the truth" and doing things like "marrying out of the lord". The current consensus, as backed up by the Shepherd book, is that an inactive person (even if out for years) is marrying out of the lord if they get married to a non Witness. I can't see it since they are scriptually out of the "truth", not being "in the Lord" anymore (as per Witness definitions). As far as I can see you can't have it both ways.

    Anyways.. I don't mean to hijack the thread just to confirm what Blondie is pointing out - i.e. even the legalistic WT definition is clear about what you have to do to disassociate yourself. The only exceptions are joining the military, another church or similar org whose goals are not consistent with the WT and having a non WT approved blood transfusion.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    They break their own rules, so you are not under obligation to play fair.

  • blondie
    blondie

    Disassociate yourself by actions:

    Join a church

    Join the military

    Take a blood transfusion

    Disassociating yourself is not just not going to meetings or not turning in time

    (But it is true that you can get 3 elders to agree to anything even without credible evidence and announce a person has da'd themselves. Questioning that decision by anyone in the congregation is not a good idea)

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    As a side point, I don't recall ever seeing in publically available WT material that taking a blood transfusion is a "disassociation by actions" offence. I know it's in the Shepherd book and it was referred to in some WT responses to UK news reports a few years ago related to JWs supposedly stopping the no blood policy but I don't recall it ever being formally announced to the R&F through the WT or on the platform. As far as I know an uninformed witness could still have the understanding that it's a DF offence.

    I might be wrong - no doubt someone will throw me a reference...

  • blondie
    blondie

    It was not even in the elders book until this recent reincarnation. It is not in publications for the rank and file.

    btw, there is nothing in the publications. What about the Guardian article?

    1. In a June 14, 2000 statement to the media, the WTS explained that an

    individual who accepts blood transfusions “willfully and without

    regret…indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of

    Jehovah’s Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step.” This was not

    a press release per se but a “statement to the press”. It is no longer

    present at the WTS media site.


    2. WTS spokesmen in both the U.K and the U.S.A. have repeatedly described this as a procedural change and strongly emphasized that Jehovah’s Witnesses have not changed their basic position on blood transfusions.


    3. No official record of this change exists at the local congregation

    level. No announcement has been made to the membership. No statement has been published in official publications. The only documentation available is the statement to the press and quotations from WTS spokesmen in various news journals.


    4. Circuit overseers have received correspondence from the WTS and are

    notifying local elders on their next regularly scheduled visit regarding

    the change.

    5. HLC members have received a letter that advised them that nothing had

    changed, flatly denying reports in the Times and making no mention of the

    procedural change.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/790967.stm

    If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.

    Statement to media scan

    http://ajwrb.org/basics/jwpressrelease6-14-00.jpg

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    Thanks Blondie...

    Yup, as I thought - no official statement to the R&F at congregational level.

    The news reports and WT responses you mentioned are what I was referring to and if you have not seen these then it is quite feasible that you would not have any idea there has been a change.

    There are still witnesses around who would not trust a WT statement that was reported in the news media and would not accept it anyway.

    I am amazed that over 12 years after this procedural change was brought in there has been no formal announcement via the WT, KM or even in a DC/CA/SAD talk.

  • blondie
    blondie

    There was a time that certain medical procedures using blood were not mentioned in the publications but if you called headquarters they would give you a verbal answer...does anyone else remember that?

  • bats in the belfry
    bats in the belfry

    Resurrected: The Guardian article of June 15, 2000

    and

    Their "Shepherd the Flock of God" book says (excerpt):

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit