Waves at Teddy !!! Hey girl !!!!
XW/Lisa
Anyone been "marked' from the platform?
by avishai 18 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hemp lover
Hi! [waves through computer screen]
I LIKE YOU!
........i....what?
[coughs]
-
simplesally
Hey Teddy girl,
Meow meow............ one night there was a bearded elder who was running around the block, he spilled coffee on his shirt and was trying to make sure it was dry before he went door to door, but just then...........
(ok, teddy............finish the story)
-
pamkw
I was never marked, but a friend of mine was. the talk made it very plain who they were talking about. This girl was in high school and everyone knew her business. It didn't help that her dad was a total jerk and told everyone his daughter was no good. She had done nothing wrong except hold a boy's hand at school. (she later married this guy, and they are still together, it has been many years.) She stopped going to meetings because people treated her like she was df. I have been publicly reproofed and df before. Not fun. Now I am just ignored, and I like that. Though my sister did try to get me in trouble a few years ago, but the elders decided since I no longer went and most people didn't know me, that it wasn't worth the trouble. Pam
-
zev
*** w82 2/1 p. 31 Questions from Readers ***
Questions
from Readers·
As to ?marking? a disorderly person in the congregation, can I do this whenever I feel that it is needed, or should I wait until the elders have given a talk on the problem??Marking? another Christian should not be undertaken lightly for it is a serious step. You must determine when to take this step. But in most cases ?marking? should follow efforts by the elders to help the erring one, including their finally giving a talk to the congregation on the problem in which he is erring.
When the apostle Paul wrote to Thessalonians about ?marking? members of that congregation, he was correcting certain persons there who had departed significantly from God?s counsel. They were "walking disorderly . . ., not working at all but meddling with what does not concern them." (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 10-12) Despite the Scriptural counsel against laziness, the disorderly persons would not work and they imposed an expensive burden on the rest. (Proverbs 6:6-11; 10:4, 5; 12:11, 24, 27; 24:30-34; 26:13-16) So Paul openly counseled against their course. Further, he advised all that if they would not respond to this firm counsel given before the whole congregation, they should be "marked" and avoided, evidently in social matters.
Some persons today have wondered whether they might ?mark? a person who is going contrary to godly counsel even though the elders have not given a congregational talk about the wrong. There might be very rare cases where such a need exists. (Compare 1 Corinthians 5:1, 2.) But there are reasons why, in the majority of cases, it is best for ?marking? to await definite steps by the elders, including their giving a talk to the congregation.
First, as imperfect humans our tendency might be to misuse ?marking,? to employ it as a form of punishment regarding minor offenses or personality differences. In one congregation there might be a sister with an abrasive personality. She ?gets on others? nerves,? being difficult to deal with or to get along with. So some sisters might think that they should ?mark? her and avoid her. That certainly would not be in line with Jesus? loving counsel that we should be merciful toward our brothers and sisters, overlooking their shortcomings and minor faults. Recall, for example, what he taught in the Model Prayer as to when God will forgive us our debts or trespasses. And Jesus urged us to be quick about trying to settle complaints against another. (Matthew 5:23-25; 6:12) So it would be wrong to ?mark? a brother over minor personal differences or offenses.
Second, when Paul wrote about ?marking? certain ones it was not because they were guilty of minor differences involving personality, individual taste or private opinion. The elders would not necessarily try to get involved in or counsel about such things. But, like Paul, they should be alert to persons who significantly violate Bible principles (even though the errors are not yet gross sin for which they might be disfellowshipped). The elders should privately counsel these erring or disorderly ones. As we read at Galatians 6:1: "Even though a man takes some false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness."
If the elders? repeated attempts to help such a one privately do not bring results, they may discuss the matter and decide to have one of them give a pointed Scriptural talk on the matter to the congregation. While, like Paul, they will not identify those who are seriously disregarding God?s counsel, they will warn against the wrong thinking or course. In this way the congregation will have their minds refreshed as to God?s thinking and they will be alerted so that they can guard against being "infected" or misled. Then, as Paul wrote, Christians individually can ?mark? the disorderly one and not associate with him. And, since the elders have provided open counsel on the problem, the erring one will understand why others in the congregation decline that one?s invitations to socialize together.?2 Thessalonians 3:13-15.
Hence, it usually is wise to refrain from ?marking? another unless the matter has been openly handled by the elders, even as Paul openly counseled about a serious matter and thereafter individuals could apply his advice about ?marking.? By viewing matters in this way we will avoid the danger of misapplying ?marking? to minor trespasses, matters of taste or personality differences. Also, it shows respect for the elders as loving shepherds who are caring for the needs of the flock.?1 Peter 5:2.
-
zev
*** w85 4/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
Questions
From Readers·
If a Christian feels that someone in the congregation is not the best of association because of that person?s conduct or attitude, should he personally ?mark? that individual in accord with 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15?Those who become part of the Christian congregation do so because they love Jehovah and sincerely want to live by his principles. It is better to fellowship with these than with worldly people. We may be more comfortable with certain Christians, as Jesus ?especially loved? the apostle John and was particularly close to 3 of the 12. Still, he chose, was interested in, and loved all of them. (John 13:1, 23; 19:26; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33) Though all brothers have failings of which we must be understanding and forgiving, we know that for the most part fellow believers are wholesome companions. (1 Peter 4:8; Matthew 7:1-5) Love for one another is an identifying mark of the Christian congregation. ?John 13:34, 35; Colossians 3:14.
On occasion, however, someone may have an attitude or way of life of which we personally do not approve. The apostle Paul wrote about some in Corinth whose personal views about the resurrection were not right and who may have had an ?eat, drink, and be merry? attitude. Mature Christians in the congregation needed to be cautious about such ones, for Paul advised: "Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits."?1 Corinthians 15:12, 32, 33.
This general counsel is also valid today. For example, a Christian couple may find that their children are adversely affected when they spend time with certain other youngsters, who may not yet take the truth seriously or may be worldly minded. These other children may yet benefit from godly training. But until there is evidence of that, the couple might restrict their children as to playing with and visiting those youngsters. This would not be a ?marking? such as spoken of in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3. The parents simply are applying Paul?s advice to avoid "bad associations."
Situations that call for ?marking? are more serious than the above example involving children. Occasionally a person in a congregation pursues an unscriptural course that is very disturbing, though it does not yet justify the disfellowshipping action mentioned at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13. Such conduct occurred in the congregation of ancient Thessalonica, so Paul wrote: "We hear certain ones are walking disorderly among you, not working at all but meddling with what does not concern them."?2 Thessalonians 3:11.
What were other Christians in Thessalonica to do? Paul wrote: "We are giving you orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition you received from us. For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother."?2 Thessalonians 3:6, 13-15.
Thus, without naming the lazy meddlers, Paul exposed to the congregation their serious course. All Christians who were aware of the identity of the disorderly ones would then treat them as "marked." The counsel, "keep this one marked," used a Greek word meaning "be you putting sign on," that is, ?taking special notice of someone.? (New World Translation Reference Bible, footnote) Paul said, "Stop associating with" the marked one "that he may become ashamed." Brothers would not completely shun him, for Paul advised them to "continue admonishing him as a brother." Yet by their limiting social fellowship with him, they might lead him to become ashamed and perhaps awaken him to the need to conform to Bible principles. Meanwhile the brothers and sisters would be protected from his unwholesome influence.?2 Timothy 2:20, 21.
The Christian congregation today also applies this counsel. The Watchtower of February 1, 1982, page 31, stressed that marking is not to be done over mere private opinions or when a Christian personally chooses to avoid close association with someone. As shown by the case in Thessalonica, marking involves serious violations of Bible principles. First the elders try repeatedly to help the violator by admonishing him. If the problem persists, they may, without naming the person, give a warning talk to the congregation concerning the disorderly conduct involved, even as Paul warned the Thessalonians. After that, individual Christians would keep the erring person "marked."
Good judgment is needed rather than predetermined rules about every aspect of marking. Paul did not give detailed rules regarding that problem in Thessalonica, such as stipulating how long someone had to have been refusing to work before he could be marked. Similarly, the elders are in touch with the flock and can use reasonableness and discernment in determining whether a particular situation is sufficiently serious and disturbing so as to require a warning talk to the congregation.
One purpose of marking is to move a disorderly Christian to feel ashamed and stop his unscriptural course. Individuals who had marked him, particularly the elders, will continue to encourage him and note his attitude as they have contact with him at meetings and in field service. When they see that the problem and attitude necessitating the marking have changed for the better, they can end their limitation as to socializing with him.
Consequently, marking should not be confused with a personal or family application of God?s advice to avoid bad association. While marking is not something that is needed often, it should be plain that marking is a Scriptural step that is taken when it is warranted, which step our Thessalonian brothers took.
[Footnotes]
See The Watchtower, May 15, 1973, pages 318-20.
For example, elders should exercise discernment in dealing with a Christian who is dating a person not "in the Lord."?See The Watchtower of March 15, 1982, page 31.
-
zev
*** w99 7/15 pp. 29-31 Questions From Readers ***
Questions
From ReadersIs
the ?marking? mentioned at 2 Thessalonians 3:14 a formal congregational process, or is it something that Christians individually do in avoiding unruly ones?What the apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians indicates that the congregation elders have a clear role in such ?marking.? However, individual Christians thereafter follow through, doing so with spiritual objectives in mind. We can best appreciate this by considering Paul?s counsel in its original setting.
Paul helped to establish the Thessalonian congregation, aiding men and women to become believers. (Acts 17:1-4) Later he wrote from Corinth to commend and encourage them. Paul offered needed counsel too. He urged them ?to live quietly, to mind their own business, and to work with their hands.? Some were not acting that way, so Paul added: "We exhort you, brothers, admonish the disorderly, speak consolingly to the depressed souls, support the weak." Clearly, there were "disorderly" ones among them who needed counsel.?1 Thessalonians 1:2-10; 4:11; 5:14.
Some months later, Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, with additional comments about Jesus? future presence. Paul also gave further guidance about how to deal with disorderly ones who were ?not working but were meddling with what did not concern them.? Their actions were contrary both to Paul?s example as a hard worker and to his clear order about working to support oneself. (2 Thessalonians 3:7-12) Paul directed that certain steps be taken. These steps came after what the elders had already done in admonishing or counseling the disorderly. Paul wrote:
"Now we are giving you orders, brothers, . . . to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition you received from us. For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother."?2 Thessalonians 3:6, 13-15.
So the further steps included withdrawing from the disorderly ones, marking them, stopping association with them, yet admonishing them as brothers. What would lead the members of the congregation to take those steps? As a help to clarify this, let us identify three situations that Paul was not focusing on here.
1. We know that Christians are imperfect and have failings. Still, love is a mark of true Christianity, calling on us to be understanding and forgiving of others? mistakes. For example, a Christian might have a rare outburst of anger, as occurred between Barnabas and Paul. (Acts 15:36-40) Or because of tiredness, one may speak harsh and cutting words. In such instances, by manifesting love and applying Bible counsel, we can cover over the error, continuing to live, associate, and work with our fellow Christian. (Matthew 5:23-25; 6:14; 7:1-5; 1 Peter 4:8) Clearly, failings of this sort were not what Paul was dealing with in 2 Thessalonians.
2. Paul was not addressing a situation in which a Christian personally chooses to limit association with another whose ways or attitudes are not good?for example, one who seems excessively focused on recreation or on material things. Or a parent may limit his child?s association with youngsters who disregard parental authority, play in a rough or dangerous way, or do not take Christianity seriously. Such are simply personal decisions in line with what we read at Proverbs 13:20: "He that is walking with wise persons will become wise, but he that is having dealings with the stupid ones will fare badly."?Compare 1 Corinthians 15:33.
3. On quite a different scale of gravity, Paul wrote to the Corinthians about one who practices gross sin and is not repentant. Such unrepentant sinners had to be excluded from the congregation. The "wicked" man had to be handed over to Satan, as it were. Thereafter, loyal Christians were not to mix with such wicked ones; the apostle John urged Christians not even to greet them. (1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 John 9-11) This, however, does not fit the counsel of 2 Thessalonians 3:14 either.
Different from the above three situations is that involving "disorderly" ones as discussed in 2 Thessalonians. Paul wrote that these were still ?brothers,? to be admonished and treated as such. Thus, the problem with the "disorderly" brothers was neither on the level of a mere personal matter between Christians nor of sufficient seriousness that congregation elders had to step in with a disfellowshipping action, as Paul did in connection with the immoral situation in Corinth. The "disorderly" ones were not guilty of grave sin, as was the man disfellowshipped in Corinth.
The "disorderly" ones in Thessalonica were guilty of significant deviations from Christianity. They would not work, whether because they thought Christ?s return was imminent or because they were lazy. Further, they were causing significant disturbance by ?meddling with what did not concern them.? Likely the congregation elders had repeatedly counseled them, in line with Paul?s advice in his first letter and with other divine advice. (Proverbs 6:6-11; 10:4, 5; 12:11, 24; 24:30-34) Still they persisted in a course that reflected badly on the congregation and that could spread to other Christians. So the Christian elder Paul, without naming the individuals, publicly called attention to their disorderliness, exposing their erroneous course.
He also let the congregation know that it would be appropriate for them as individual Christians to ?mark? the disorderly. This implied that individuals should take note of those whose actions corresponded to the course about which the congregation was publicly alerted. Paul advised that they "withdraw from every brother walking disorderly." That certainly could not mean completely shunning such a person, for they were to "continue admonishing him as a brother." They would continue to have Christian contact at the meetings and perhaps in the ministry. They could hope that their brother would respond to admonition and abandon his disturbing ways.
In what sense would they "withdraw" from him? Evidently, this was in a social context. (Compare Galatians 2:12.) Their ceasing to have social dealings and recreation with him might show him that principled people disliked his ways. Even if he did not get ashamed and change, at least others would be less likely to learn his ways and become like him. At the same time, these individual Christians should concentrate on the positive. Paul advised them: "For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right."?2 Thessalonians 3:13.
Clearly, this apostolic counsel is no basis for looking down on or judging our brothers who make some minor slip or error. Instead, its objective is to help one who takes a disturbing course that significantly conflicts with Christianity.
Paul did not lay down detailed rules as if trying to create a complicated procedure. But it is plain that the elders should first counsel and try to help a disorderly one. If they do not succeed and the person persists in a way that is disturbing and that has the potential for spreading, they may conclude that the congregation should be put on the alert. They can arrange for a talk on why such disorderliness is to be avoided. They will not mention names, but their warning talk will help to protect the congregation because responsive ones will take extra care to limit social activities with any who clearly display such disorderliness.
Hopefully, in time the disorderly one will be ashamed of his ways and will be moved to change. As the elders and others in the congregation see the change, they can individually decide to end the limitation they have put on personally socializing with him.
In summary, then: The congregation elders take the lead in offering help and counsel if someone is walking disorderly. If he does not see the error of his way but continues to be an unwholesome influence, the elders may warn the congregation by means of a talk that makes clear the Biblical view?be it of dating unbelievers, or whatever the improper course is. (1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14) Christians in the congregation who are thus alerted can individually decide to limit any socializing with ones who clearly are pursuing a disorderly course but who are still brothers.
[Footnote]
The Greek word was used regarding soldiers who did not keep rank or follow discipline, as well as for truant students, those who skipped their school classes.
[Pictures
on page 31]Christian elders admonish the disorderly and yet view them as fellow believers
zev,
of the "never been marked klass"
-
blondie
2. Paul was not addressing a situation in which a Christian personally chooses to limit association with another whose ways or attitudes are not good?for example, one who seems excessively focused on recreation or on material things. Or a parent may limit his child?s association with youngsters who disregard parental authority, play in a rough or dangerous way, or do not take Christianity seriously. Such are simply personal decisions in line with what we read at Proverbs 13:20: "He that is walking with wise persons will become wise, but he that is having dealings with the stupid ones will fare badly."?Compare 1 Corinthians 15:33.
It is this kind of unofficially marking that can cause the most damage. I know of JWs that "personally" marked an indiividual and then called all their JW buddies and told them they should do the same. The platform "marking" is mild compared to this gossipy way of trashing an individual.
Blondie
-
tazmaniac
I was always kinds naive. I wouldnt find out til a few days later when someone would say "wow, did you hear that marking talk"? The only one I really recall was a talk after a circuit assembly where 8 or 10 young brothers watched a porn film from pay per view in their room. The young guys just sank in their chairs.