What if you change your convictions after baptism?

Recognizable questions

- Can someone sincerely get baptized and sincerely come to believe differently years later?

- Does free will apply only before baptism, or also after?

- Is changing one’s convictions the same as leaving Jehovah?

- Is no longer believing the same as doing serious wrong?

- What is the difference between doubt, conscientious objections, becoming inactive, withdrawal, and removal?

- What happens when family and friends stay inside the organization?

- How does a lifelong dedication relate to changing beliefs?

- Can you force yourself to keep believing something?

- How did Jesus deal with people who doubted, made mistakes, or drifted away?

- What can the prodigal son, Thomas, and Peter teach us?

- Can love remain when belief changes?

- And ultimately: who can judge what is really in someone’s heart?

A choice can be sincere then and now

Suppose someone is completely convinced at fourteen, eighteen, or twenty-five.
He believes in Jehovah. He believes that Jehovah’s Witnesses are God’s organization. He preaches. He attends meetings. He gets baptized.
He chose this for himself.
His choice may have been entirely sincere.
But twenty years later, something happens.
He reads, researches, and asks more questions.
Maybe certain Bible beliefs change. Maybe he begins to struggle with the organization’s policies or doctrines. Maybe he has been through a lot. Maybe in the end he no longer even believes in God the way he used to.
And one day he has to admit to himself:
‘I no longer believe what I believed when I got baptized.’
What then?
Was his earlier choice insincere?
Not necessarily.
Maybe both moments were sincere.

THEN

‘I believe this
is the truth’

        ↓

sincere choice


YEARS LATER

new information
new experiences
new research

        ↓

‘I’ve come to a
different conclusion’

        ↓

can also be sincere

The person who believed then was honest. And the person who no longer believes now can be honest too.

People change

That sounds obvious, but when it comes to religious beliefs, we sometimes forget it.
A forty-year-old is not the same person as the fourteen-year-old child he once was.
Over twenty or thirty years, someone may get married, have children, lose people, experience illness, read hundreds of books, meet different people, study the Bible, and change their ideas about right and wrong.
We accept change in almost every other area.
Someone can change political views.
Change careers.
Change their view on child-rearing.
Change their life philosophy.
A scientist can revise an earlier conclusion in light of new evidence.
Why should religious belief be the only belief where changing automatically means the earlier or current person is dishonest?
Maybe someone changed not because they started thinking less seriously.
Maybe they changed because they started thinking more seriously.

But wasn’t baptism a lifelong promise?

From a JW perspective, this is a strong counterargument.
According to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official explanation, baptism is preceded by a personal dedication to Jehovah. That dedication is seen as a solemn promise to serve Jehovah forever.
From that perspective, it is understandable for a Witness to say:
‘Surely you can’t say after twenty years that you no longer want to keep that promise?’
That argument deserves to be taken seriously.
A promise matters precisely because it does not only apply when things are easy.
But a difficult counterquestion arises:
What happens when someone is not simply no longer willing to keep their promise, but sincerely no longer believes in the foundations on which that promise was based?
Suppose someone no longer believes that Jehovah’s Witnesses are God’s organization.
Or eventually no longer even believes that Jehovah exists in the way they once did.
Can you force yourself to have a belief?

BEHAVIOR
I can adjust

WORDS
I can say

MEETINGS
I can attend

but:

BELIEF

can I do that on command?

Who does someone dedicate themselves to?

JW publications explain that the personal dedication at baptism is made to Jehovah.
At the same time, baptism makes someone recognizable as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and connects the baptism to Jehovah’s organization.
That is why two questions can be separated:
Do I still want to serve Jehovah?
and:
Do I still believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are his organization?
Those answers do not have to be the same for everyone.
Some ex-JWs become atheists.
Some become agnostic.
Some become Christians in another church.
Some continue to believe in Jehovah, but no longer believe that one organization speaks exclusively on his behalf.
And some simply no longer know what they believe.
Therefore, the statement:
‘This person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses’
does not automatically mean:
‘This person has rejected God.’

Free will before and after baptism

Jehovah’s Witnesses emphasize that a person must choose for themselves whether they want to serve Jehovah. Baptism is supposed to be voluntary.
The official information also says that no one may be forced to remain one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that they can decide for themselves to leave the organization.
But what does voluntariness mean when, twenty years later, after conscientious study, someone comes to a different conclusion?
Does their free will still count then?
You could say:
‘Yes, of course. He is free to leave, but choices have consequences.’
That is a reasonable counterargument.
After all, freedom does not mean that every choice is without consequences.
But then we have to look further at which consequences are reasonable.
If the consequences mainly concern someone’s religious standing, that is one thing.
But when a change in belief can also have major consequences for the most important human relationships in a person’s life, a more difficult question arises:
How free is a faith choice when changing that choice may mean that your relationship with loved ones changes dramatically?

No longer believing is not the same as wrongdoing

This distinction is essential.
Someone can stop believing without becoming a bad person.
Suppose:
a man was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for twenty years.
He did not cheat on his wife.
He is not a drunkard.
He does not abuse anyone.
He does not steal.
He takes good care of his children.
He helps his neighbors.
He tries to live honestly.
But he says:
‘After years of study, I no longer believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are God’s organization.’
What act of wrongdoing has he committed by saying that?
That is not the same as the question of whether his new belief is correct according to JW doctrine.
An active Witness may be fully convinced that he is making a serious religious mistake.
But an incorrect belief and bad behavior are not automatically the same thing.

BELIEVING DIFFERENTLY

        ≠

cheating
abusing
stealing
misusing
or harming others

Someone can even be wrong without being a bad person.

Is leaving the organization the same as leaving Jehovah?

Logically, those two things do not have to be the same either.
Some ex-JWs become atheists or agnostic.
Some go to another church.
Some continue to believe in Jehovah but no longer believe that one organization speaks exclusively on his behalf.
And some simply no longer know what they believe.
Therefore, from:
‘This person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses’
you cannot automatically conclude:
‘This person has rejected God.’
It depends on what that person really believes.

Who can see the heart?

In 1 Samuel 16:7, a fundamental distinction is made between how humans see and how Jehovah sees.
Humans see what is visible.
Jehovah sees the heart.
That should make us careful with labels.
We can see behavior.
We can hear what someone says.
But we cannot fully see why someone came to a conclusion, how much pain came before it, how sincere their search was, or what their relationship with God truly is.
Romans 14:4 also asks:
‘Who are you to judge another person’s servant?’
And in James 4:12, it says there is one Lawgiver and Judge.
That does not mean Christian congregations should never have standards.
It does mean that there is a limit to what people can claim about another person’s heart.

HUMANS SEE

words
behavior
decisions

        ↓

JEHOVAH SEES
ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

the heart

And so what is an apostate?

Here language matters.
In a religious context, apostasy can mean that someone consciously leaves or rejects a faith or doctrine they previously professed.
In that broad sense, someone who leaves their former faith can be called apostate from that faith.
But in everyday use, the word often takes on a much heavier emotional meaning.
People may think of an apostate as someone who is bad, dangerous, deceitful, or hostile.
And that is something we need to be careful with.
Someone can reject a doctrine without being malicious.
For the person who has left the faith, the word apostate can also sound harsh and humiliating.
The word can carry associations with waste: something that is no longer useful, has gone rotten, and is thrown away.
For someone who no longer shares their former faith but is still trying to live well — and perhaps believes in God in a different way — such a label can cut deeply.
It can feel as though not only their belief is being rejected, but as if they themselves, as a person, have become inferior or worthless.
Someone can reject a doctrine without being bad.
Someone can even be wrong without being a bad person.
Changing a belief does not yet tell you what kind of person someone is.

Not every former JW has the same story

The official JW explanation makes a distinction between different situations.
Someone can become inactive.
Someone can make it clear they no longer want to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Someone can withdraw themselves.
And someone can be disfellowshipped for serious wrongdoing when, according to the elders, there is no evidence of repentance.
These situations are not the same.

NO LONGER AN ACTIVE JW

can mean:

inactive
      ↓
withdrawn
      ↓
disfellowshipped
      ↓
has adopted different beliefs

Not everyone who is no longer a JW has the same story.

What happens to family and friends?

This is where the subject can become emotionally heavy.
The current official JW explanation says that someone who has been disfellowshipped is not to have social interaction with by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The arrangement has been nuanced in recent years. For example, a disfellowshipped person may be invited to a meeting, and someone may give a brief greeting there according to their conscience, except in certain situations such as active apostasy.
For family members living in the same home, the situation is different from family outside the household.
But apart from the exact rules, a human question arises.
Suppose someone no longer believes after twenty years.
Their parents, brothers and sisters, and friends are still JWs.
Maybe almost all of the important relationships in their life were formed within the congregation.
Then not only their theology changes.
Their entire social world can change too.
That can be an enormous price to pay for following your own conscience.

‘But didn’t he know what he was choosing?’

That is probably one of the strongest arguments from the other side.
‘He knew before his baptism what the rules were.’
With an adult, that can carry considerable weight.
But with someone baptized as a minor, or a young person who wanted to go along because others were getting baptized and they did not want to be left behind, the question becomes more complicated.
What does know mean?
A fourteen-year-old can know:
‘Baptism is for life.’
But can they really grasp what it means to have a partner, parents, children, and friends within the same religious community thirty years later, and then change beliefs?
Knowing information is not always the same as being able to foresee the future consequences.

Suppose someone truly lived wrongly

Let’s make it harder.
Suppose someone was disfellowshipped for sexual immorality or drunkenness.
At that time, their behavior was wrong according to Jehovah’s Witness biblical standards.
But then they change.
They stop drinking excessively.
They change their lifestyle.
They sincerely regret the people they hurt.
For years they live quietly and responsibly.
But they do not return to the organization, because by then they no longer believe it is God’s exclusive channel.
What are they ten years later?
Still:
‘the wrongdoer’?
Their former behavior really does exist.
But their current behavior exists too.
If someone has truly changed, how long may their identity still be defined by the worst chapter of their life?

How can you see change without contact?

There is another paradox there.
Suppose family members shun someone because he was removed as a wrongdoer.
But that person changes.
How are his family members supposed to see that when they have almost no contact with him?
They may mainly know the story of:
the person he was then
and not necessarily:
the person he has now become.

THEN

serious wrongdoing
        ↓
removal
        ↓
little contact


YEARS LATER

different behavior
regret
recovery
change

        ↓

but who sees that?

For the person who has changed, that can be painful.
He may think:
‘I am not that person anymore. But to them I will always be the one who made that mistake back then.’

An organization needs boundaries

Here too, the JW side deserves a serious argument.
Every religious community has the right to set boundaries.
A church cannot say:
‘Every belief and every kind of behavior makes no difference.’
In the end, that would rob the idea of community of its meaning.
Paul speaks clearly in 1 Corinthians 5 about a serious situation within the congregation and uses strong language about removing the wrongdoer.
Jehovah’s Witnesses base a significant part of their disfellowshipping policy on such texts.
So this was not invented out of thin air.
There are Bible texts that support congregational discipline.
But that does not end the interpretive question.
Because the same Bible also contains Jesus eating with sinners, Peter being restored, Thomas being given room for doubt, Zacchaeus being visited, and the story of a father running to meet his lost son.
So the question is not simply:
‘Does exclusion appear anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?’
The more interesting question is:
How should all these texts be applied together?

Jesus associated with people who made mistakes

Jesus frequently associated with people who had a bad religious or social reputation.
According to Mark 2:15-17, he ate with tax collectors and sinners.
His answer was not that sin did not matter.
His point was that people who needed spiritual help should not be placed beyond his reach.
That is an important distinction:
disapproving of what someone does is not necessarily the same as avoiding the person.

The Samaritan woman

In John 4, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman.
Religiously speaking, there were major differences between Jews and Samaritans.
Her personal life was also complicated.
Yet Jesus starts a conversation with her.
He asks questions.
He speaks with her about worship.
He treats her as someone with whom a serious spiritual conversation is possible.
He does not first need to approve her life choices before speaking with her.

Zacchaeus

Zacchaeus was a tax collector.
Tax collectors had a bad reputation among many Jews.
Yet in Luke 19, Jesus says he wants to be at Zacchaeus’ home.
Once again, the pattern is striking:
contact comes before change.
Jesus does not first wait until Zacchaeus has long proven that he has changed before associating with him.
Instead, the contact becomes part of the moment in which change becomes possible.

Peter

Peter denies Jesus three times.
That is not a small mistake.
He denies that he knows Jesus at the very moment Jesus is being arrested.
Yet Peter is not reduced forever to:
‘the one who denied Jesus.’
After Jesus’ resurrection, we see restoration.
In John 21, Jesus speaks with him.
Peter is given responsibility again.
His worst moment does not become his permanent identity.

Thomas

Thomas even doubts the resurrection.
He is essentially saying:
‘I won’t believe it until I see proof.’
Jesus does not respond by telling the other disciples to avoid Thomas.
He gives Thomas the opportunity to face his doubt.
That does not mean every modern religious situation is exactly the same.
But it does show something:
doubt was not automatically treated as moral corruption.

And then the lost son

In Luke 15, Jesus tells about a son who leaves his father and squanders his inheritance.
He really does live in the wrong way.
Eventually he comes back.
What does the father do?
According to the story, the father sees him while he is still a long way off.
He feels compassion.
He runs to him.
He embraces him.
He kisses him.
The son begins his confession, but the father immediately starts arranging the restoration.
That picture is striking.
Not because it automatically means every congregational procedure is wrong.
But because through it Jesus shows something about:
repentance, forgiveness and restoration.

‘Seventy times seven’

When Peter asks how many times he must forgive his brother, Jesus answers in Matthew 18:21-22 with the well-known image of generous forgiveness.
Clearly, this is not about keeping track of a literal maximum.
But then a practical question arises:
How can you see that someone has changed, hear apologies, experience reconciliation, and let forgiveness grow when there is virtually no contact?
Sometimes distance may be necessary.
For example, when someone is dangerous, violent, or manipulative.
Forgiveness does not obligate anyone to put themselves in danger.
But someone who did something wrong twenty years ago and someone who is still hurting others today are not necessarily the same situation.

Protection and mercy

Perhaps two Biblical principles stand side by side here.
A community may protect itself from someone who actively harms others.
And at the same time, Christians are called to love, mercy, forgiveness, and restoration.
Those principles do not necessarily have to be in conflict.
The problem arises when we treat every situation the same.

PROTECTION

setting boundaries with
someone who is
truly harming others

        +

MERCY

space for
repentance
change
forgiveness
restoration

An abuser who refuses to change is not the same as someone who no longer believes in 1914.
A drunk who is still terrorizing his family is not the same as someone who had an alcohol problem twenty years ago but has now lived soberly and responsibly for years.
Someone who deliberately tries to harm people is not the same as someone who says:
‘I have done research and my conscience no longer allows me to believe this.’
The word ex-JW does not tell us enough to know what kind of person we are dealing with.

Less labels, more people

‘Apostate.’
‘Wrongdoer.’
‘Disfellowshipped.’
‘Inactive.’
‘Ex-JW.’
Those are categories.
Sometimes categories are useful organizationally.
But behind every category there is an individual story.
Maybe someone who still prays every night.
Maybe someone who can no longer find God.
Maybe someone who has made terrible mistakes and has changed deeply.
Maybe someone who has never seriously sinned but simply has a different interpretation of the Bible.
Maybe someone who is angry.
Maybe someone who is broken.
Maybe someone who is happier than ever.
We see a piece of the picture.
According to 1 Samuel 16:7, Jehovah sees something we cannot fully see:
the heart.
That alone should perhaps be reason enough to be cautious with definitive judgments about what someone is before God.

A question for active Jehovah’s Witnesses

Suppose someone you have known for thirty years says to you:
‘I still love you all. I’m trying to be a good person. But after years of research, I no longer believe that the Governing Body is used by Jehovah the way I used to believe.’
What do you really know about his heart?
Can you disagree with his conclusion without seeing him as a bad person?
Can you believe he is religiously mistaken while at the same time recognizing that he may be sincere?
And if Jehovah really can read hearts:
how much room can we leave for his judgment?

A question for ex-JWs

The other side deserves the same mirror too.
The fact that you left does not automatically mean that every active Jehovah’s Witness is brainwashed, stupid, or bad.
Maybe your mother truly believes.
Maybe your brother is sincerely trying to live according to his conscience.
Maybe an elder is convinced he is obeying Jehovah.
You can criticize a system without turning every person within that system into an enemy.
That is the same freedom you probably want for yourself:
judge me as a person, not just as a representative of a group.

Free to examine again

A belief can remain exactly the same after new investigation.
Someone can examine again and then believe even more strongly that Jehovah’s Witnesses have the truth.
That is also a possible outcome.
So freedom does not dictate that someone must leave their faith.
But if investigation is truly free, another conclusion must also be possible.

I BELIEVE
      ↓
I CHOOSE
      ↓
I LEARN MORE
      ↓
I MAY DOUBT
      ↓
I INVESTIGATE AGAIN
      ↓
CAN MY CONCLUSION
REMAIN THE SAME?

YES

      ↓

CAN MY CONCLUSION
ALSO CHANGE?

Maybe this is the question in the end

A person can sincerely believe at fourteen.
Begin to doubt at thirty.
No longer believe at forty.
And at sixty perhaps find something again that he calls God.
People change.
If free will truly has value, then perhaps the hardest form of it is not only the freedom to say yes.
Perhaps it is also the freedom, after years of honest reflection, to say:
‘I have come to a different conclusion.’
No one has to agree with that.
A religious community may hold on to its own beliefs.
Parents may feel grief.
Friends may believe that someone is making a serious mistake.
But perhaps something can still stand above that:
love for the person who has started thinking differently.
For if Jehovah truly sees the heart, then perhaps people do not have to pretend that they can fully do so as well.
And perhaps that is why the most important question is not:
‘Is he still one of us?’
but:

‘Who is this person today — and how would I treat him if love weighed more heavily than the label pasted on him?’

Questions to think about

Could my former faith have been sincere even though my current convictions differ from it?
Can someone force himself to keep believing something he is no longer convinced of?
Is my dedication to Jehovah the same as having to keep the same beliefs about an organization for life?
Can someone want to serve Jehovah and at the same time no longer believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are his only organization?
Is being religiously mistaken the same as being morally bad?
What does the word ‘apostate’ do to someone who does not experience himself as bad or hostile?
How much does the label ‘apostate,’ ‘disfellowshipped,’ or ‘ex-JW’ really say about someone’s character?
If someone really lived badly but then changed for years afterward, how long may his past keep defining his identity?
How can you know that someone has not changed when you hardly have any contact with him?
Is someone who has a different Bible interpretation really comparable to someone who actively harms others?
How do protection, mercy, forgiveness, and restoration relate to one another?
What do Jesus’ dealings with Thomas, Peter, Zacchaeus, and other sinners teach about people who make mistakes or think differently?
If Jehovah sees the heart, how much may we ourselves fill in about someone else’s motives?
Does free will apply only when someone says ‘yes’ to baptism, or also when he later re-examines what he believes?
May a truly free search also end with a different conclusion?

Summary

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that baptism is a voluntary but lifelong dedication to Jehovah.
At the same time, the organization says that no one may be forced to remain a Jehovah’s Witness.
That creates an important question when beliefs change later on.
A person can sincerely believe at fourteen.
He can be baptized sincerely.
And years later, after new research, he can just as sincerely say:
‘I no longer believe this.’
That does not automatically mean his former belief was fake.
And by itself, it does not prove that his new belief is correct either.
It mainly means that people change.
A distinction must also be made between:
believing differently
and:
doing harm to others.
The Bible contains clear texts about congregation discipline in cases of serious wrongdoing.
But the same Bible also shows Jesus speaking with sinners, giving Thomas room for doubt, restoring Peter, visiting Zacchaeus, and telling a story about a father running toward his lost son.
An abuser who refuses to change is therefore not automatically the same situation as someone who no longer believes in 1914 after Bible study.
And someone who once lived seriously wrongly may, years later, be a different person.
So the question is not only:
‘May a religious community set boundaries?’
Of course it may.
The harder questions are:
Which situations call for protection?
Which call for correction?
Where is there room for change, mercy, and restoration?
And when is it not about bad behavior, but simply about a changed belief?
If, according to 1 Samuel 16:7, Jehovah ultimately sees the heart, then perhaps this question remains above all:
How much may people themselves fill in about the motives, sincerity, and spiritual condition of someone who has come to believe differently?

Sources

New World Translation of the Bible — 1 Samuel 16:7.
New World Translation of the Bible — Matthew 18:21-22.
New World Translation of the Bible — Mark 2:15-17.
New World Translation of the Bible — Luke 15:11-32.
New World Translation of the Bible — Luke 19:1-10.
New World Translation of the Bible — John 4:4-30.
New World Translation of the Bible — John 20:24-29.
New World Translation of the Bible — John 21:15-19.
New World Translation of the Bible — Romans 14:4.
New World Translation of the Bible — 1 Corinthians 5:1-13.
New World Translation of the Bible — 2 Corinthians 2:5-8.
New World Translation of the Bible — Galatians 6:1.
New World Translation of the Bible — James 4:12.
New World Translation of the Bible — 2 John 9-11.
Jehovah’s Witnesses — Can someone leave the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Jehovah’s Witnesses — How do Jehovah’s Witnesses treat former fellow believers?
Jehovah’s Witnesses — Should I get baptized? — Part 1: What baptism means.
The Watchtower — Are You Ready for Baptism?
The Watchtower, August 2024 — Help for Those Removed from the Congregation.
The Watchtower, August 2024 — Imitating Jehovah’s View of Sinners in the Congregation.