I came across something I'd written exactly 2 weeks and 5 days after I first became convinced (in a stupor) the the Watchtower Society wasn't the channel of God--and that they didn't have "The Truth." Since then (over two years ago) I've certainly come to different conclusions about Christianity in general, but it's still interesting to see how my mind was opening up. In the previous two and a half weeks my mind had been blown by what I'd found; it apparently took me this long to try and get my thoughts together.
I didn't finish it, but here's what I had. Pretty long...
-------------------------------------------
10/4/2004
What follows is my attempt to comprehend information that challenges whether or not the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is what it claims to be—and what I’ve always held it to be, namely the sole channel of communication from Almighty God, through Christ Jesus, to humankind.
At 38 years of age and having lived as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses my entire life, I came to believe that the only way to be found acceptable by God is to be a dedicated, baptized member of this organization. While this is a teaching of the organization, it is also true that the Watchtower Society definitely stresses the need to “make the Truth your own.” When non JWs would ask me, “So do you believe that only Jehovah’s Witnesses will get into God’s Kingdom?” I would answer in a typically diplomatic fashion.
“Only God knows who he will and will not allow into His kingdom; that decision certainly isn’t up to us. We do recognize though that He does not accept just any form of worship. We also know that the Bible teaches the road to life is ‘narrow and cramped and few would be finding it,’ while the road to destruction would be ‘broad and spacious and many would be finding it.’ So it’s reasonable to believe that most people are not on that road to life, and it’s probably unreasonable to think that a religion is the right one simply because so many people are members.” So, while we craft an answer that we hope will result in less controversy, the truth is—yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses do in fact believe that (among those living today) only those in this organization will enter God’s Kingdom.
If people pressed on this topic further, I would usually paraphrase what I’d heard a District Overseer, Brother Beagler, say. “Are you asking me if I believe I have the truth? Well, yes I DO believe I have the truth. Don’t you believe YOU have the truth?” I would then go on to show them the verses at Matthew 24:43-47. I would then say, “So that’s a question each one of us has to answer for him or herself. Who really is that faithful and discreet slave? I’ve answered that for myself. I believe the faithful and discreet slave is in association with the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” I would then often take them to Ephesians 1:10, which speaks of “an administration at the full limit of the times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ…” I’d usually ask if they’d let me show them why I felt this was referring to the Watchtower Society.
I have to admit that I always had difficulty with gratuitous assertions about the faithful and discreet slave. I recall studying with a particularly sharp attorney in the relatively new “Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life” publication. Of course I’d conducted a congregation bookstudy out of it, but somehow asking this remarkably intelligent man to accept easily that Jehovah’s anointed were found only among Jehovah’s Witnesses today was very difficult for me. I wanted to heed the Society’s recommendations about not needlessly bringing auxiliary information into the study though, so I printed out a few Watchtower articles that I thought would help prove it. I guess what I’m saying is that I had faith in the organization, but I thought it incredibly presumptuous of us to expect that others would draw the same conclusion without considerable investigation. I thought that it was better to present it as something that I had come to believe—and that I had confidence they too would believe—instead of insulting their intelligence by dogmatically asserting it. But the Society favors a simpler presentation of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They believe that God’s Holy Spirit will do much to fill in any gaps in organization teachings.
I sometimes wondered how a person could possibly be happy, leaving the Truth. How could they go on, knowing what they’d learned, but rejecting Jehovah’s organization? I imagined that each day they would try to find something that would block the coming destruction of Armageddon from their memories. I thought they were either deliberately choosing to reject Jehovah’s requirements in favor of a less restrictive life, or that they were simply appointed to the “Evil Slave” position by Satan, having a truly wicked disposition and wanting attention for themselves.
I also remember wondering about brothers who had formerly held positions of authority in the congregation but who had stepped aside and significantly curtailed their participation in field service. What had happened? Likewise when persons I knew to be both intelligent and humble left the organization I wanted to ask, “At what point did you come to believe that it wasn’t The Truth?” It wasn’t because I thought they had any possible rational explanation. I just wondered how exactly their minds had become diseased.
If someone were to ask me the same question now, I would ask them to reconsider the query. The question is, “At what point did you finally give yourself permission to make an honest and objective assessment of the organization?” And, remember, a definition of “objective” is “Not influenced by emotion or personal opinion.” (Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary) So being objective would involve considering the possibility that the organization of the Watchtower Society is not what it claims to be, specifically the sole channel of communication from God through Christ and to humankind. Isn’t this objectivity proper? Doesn’t 2 Corinthians 13:5 teach, “Keep testing whether you are in the faith…”? And doesn’t Ephesians 5:10 say, “Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord.”?
Of course as I began to find information that challenged my faith in the Society, I had to remember the other side of this objectivity coin. Yes, I had to be just as willing to find that the Watchtower Society is what it claims to be and what I’d always accepted it to be. And so to the extent possible for infallible creatures I now set out to find the truth about God’s requirements for humans and whether salvation requires—not only adherence to Jesus’ commands—but also association and membership with the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I am aware that the whole idea of this investigation defies a principle taught by the Society. They teach that such a thing is both dangerous and evidence that I may be haughty, having an independent spirit. This teaching I will consider as the first of many “flashpoints.” I use this word to describe the times over the years when I had trouble understanding something the Society taught. I think I can guarantee that most—if not all—Jehovah’s Witnesses have had many of the same such flashpoints. But they were not merely difficulties in understanding. Often they were private moments when a teaching both did not seem to correspond with scripture and did not have “the ring of truth.” This term is one the organization sometimes used to help us perceive how, for instance, the Bible was superior to the other writings of man, and how so many of Christendom’s teachings were false. Yet, during these flashpoints I describe, I found certain Watchtower teachings not having “the ring of truth.”
But that was okay. It was perfectly natural for me to have questions and doubts. I was willing to recognize that, as an imperfect human, I had flawed powers of understanding. Just because something didn’t seem correct to me by no means meant that it was incorrect.
As an example of this, I recall once wondering about the scripture found at 1 Corinthians 14:34: “…let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says.” Understand that I had nothing against women. I saw no reason whatsoever why women should not participate in Christian meetings. But there it was in black and white. Why was this biblical policy not followed in congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Another brother, a friend of mine, helped me to understand, basically by making me read the verses surrounding it. Verse 35 reads, “If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home…” Okay, then. This verse helped me to see that the silence Paul referred to was in the context of ‘questioning’ in the congregation. Other scriptures taught that wives were to be in subjection to their husbands and only men were assigned to be “teachers” in the congregation. So it made sense that women questioning men in the congregation might be seen as inappropriate challenging of male teachers. But beyond such challenging there was no reason to believe that women, as beloved preachers of the good news, would be mandated to sit in utter silence.
So I was willing to use this experience as a pattern. Anytime something didn’t seem correct, I would be willing to do further research, ask other friends, give it time, and eventually I would most likely have the proper understanding. And even if I didn’t, who was I to question? The overwhelming evidence pointed to this organization as being Jehovah’s channel of communication, didn’t it? I believe those who know me would agree that I am a cooperator, not a challenger. I find opportunistic faultfinders most irritating. By no means will I rush to judgment about a matter. That’s why it was easy for me look past these flashpoints. But they were there.
So just when and why did I give myself permission to investigate this organization objectively? The seeds were sown during the Summer of 1997. At the time I was serving as an elder in my congregation. I was asked to chair a judicial committee that investigated charges that a fellow elder (who was a close friend) had been involved in a very serious matter. Because of the seriousness, our Circuit Overseer immediately expanded the committee to five elders, two from other congregations. Two people accused this elder of the same offense, which they alleged had occurred many years earlier. These two had never met or spoken with one another in their lives, having been part of the congregation at separate times.
Their testimony was impossible to dismiss, but the brother would not confess. This disturbed me greatly. Had I more experience, I suppose I’d have understood that this position is most typical of those accused of this type of offense. Nonetheless, as chairman, I urged the committee to consider all the possible reasons why he wouldn’t confess. The first possibility of course is that he would rather lie than face the ramifications of his actions. A second was that he had committed the act, but had somehow blocked it from his memory. (Dubious as it seemed, I wanted us to consider every possibility.) Then a third possibility occurred to me. Perhaps this brother wouldn’t confess because he didn’t think confession to congregation elders was a requirement to receiving Jehovah’s forgiveness. Maybe he felt a personal confession to Jehovah was all that was required. So I conducted the research I’d need to help him realize that confession to the elders was required.
Problem. The more I investigated, the more confused I became. In fact, it actually appeared that the Society did not necessarily teach that confession to elders was a requirement. Yes, I know that most Jehovah’s Witnesses (elders included) believe they do, but as you’ll see in my below Flashpoint #1, they hold back from explicitly asserting it—and seem to recognize it is not a scriptural requirement.
Flashpoint #1: Does the Watchtower Society, or does it not, teach that confession to congregation elders is necessary to receiving Jehovah’s forgiveness?
Let’s start with “Reasoning from the Scriptures” under the heading, “Confession.” The Society makes a strong case against the practice of auricular confession as practiced by Roman Catholics. Included is the following…
“When a person sins against God
Matt. 6:6-12: “When you pray, go into your private room and, after shutting your door, pray to your Father who is in secret . . . ‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified . . . and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.’”
Ps. 32:5: “My sin I finally confessed to you [God], and my error I did not cover. I said: ‘I shall make confession over my transgressions to Jehovah.’ And you yourself pardoned the error of my sins.”
My friend, the italics are not mine. The Society is here teaching that confession of sins is something we do to Jehovah. And they faithfully report Kind David’s recognition that it was Jehovah himself who forgave him. But, as any Jehovah’s Witness knows, several times per year talks are given which include powerful admonition to confess sins to the elders. For scriptural support they will quote James 5:14…
“Is there anyone sick among you? Let him call the older men of the congregation to him, and let them pray over him, greasing him with oil in the name of Jehovah.”
But this always bothered me, because the scripture says, “Let him”; it does not say, “He must.” The scripture certainly seems to discuss how the older men of the congregation can help people who need it. Does it seem to be mandating an immediate reporting of sins to these men? Not according to the Watchtower Society. Again under “Confession” in “Reasoning from the Scriptures,” you will find this scripture from the letter of James used only once. It appears directly under the following heading…
“When someone becomes involved in serious wrongdoing and wants spiritual help”
The organization here recognizes that confession to elders is an option for someone who “wants” it. Additionally, in quoting James 5, the Reasoning book adds a bracketed pair of words…
“Also, if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven him [by God]…”
Yes, in addition to teaching that confession is made to Jehovah, they also go out of their way to emphasize that forgiveness too comes from God himself. But how can this be? As a third generation Witness and congregation servant for six years, I always believed that if a person didn’t confess to the elders, Jehovah would never forgive him. And I didn’t arrive at that understanding by myself. Why did I believe this?
Interestingly, after this entry in the Reasoning book, the final heading asks…
“What if persons who commit sins do not seek help?”
Quoted are Galatians 6:1, which encourages brothers with spiritual qualifications to try to adjust a man before he takes a false step, 1 Timothy 5:20, which says to reprove ‘practicers’ of sin before all onlookers, and 1 Corinthians 5:11-13, which charges congregations to remove determined and unrepentant practicers of serious sins.
I believe this final section is meant to subtly warn Witnesses that they’d better confess, but since the scriptures are quoted, it’s clear that they refer—not merely to people who sin—but to those who are unabashed and unrepentant sinners. And those scriptures make no mention of whether or not these unrepentant ones had ever confessed to older men.
What else do we have on this subject? Well before we leave the Reasoning book, let’s look at one more of its points relevant to our discussion on confession. It quotes John 20:21-23 from The Jerusalem Bible…
“’As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.’ After saying this he breathed on them and said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained.’”
The Society’s comments…
“How did the apostles understand and apply this? There is no record in the Bible of a single instance in which an apostle listened to a private confession and then pronounced absolution. However, the requirements for being forgiven by God are set out in the Bible. The apostles, under the direction of holy spirit, could discern whether individuals were meeting such requirements and could on this basis declare that God had either forgiven them or not forgiven them.”
Again, the italics are theirs.
About a year after that judicial hearing I stepped aside as an elder because of family concerns. And over the next seven years, I believe I only mentioned the results of my research to one elder in a private conversation. This man, a friend of mine, seemed to agree with my findings. He reminded me of the Society’s position on members—even congregation servants—who had sinned but only confessed to elders years later. They taught that if at least three years had passed, there was evidence that Jehovah had forgiven him or her, and they had definitely put the sin behind them, there would be no reason to form a judicial committee. A servant would not necessarily even lose his privileges. This demonstrates the Society’s acceptance that a person can in fact sin seriously and be forgiven by Jehovah—without having confessed to a man.
Flashpoint #2: Why are we so worried about what opposers say?
If this organization has the backing of Almighty God, why shouldn’t we be able to discuss their challenges? I’m not suggesting we “throw pearls before swine” in the case of those who simply won’t listen to reason. But we are told never ever ever to speak to them. Never to read anything they’ve written under any circumstances. While this flashpoint is closely related to the next one (concerning apostates,) I’ll consider them separately.
This is what I mean by “ring of truth.” If I have the truth, why do I worry about what others may say? After all, “The word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Hebrews 4:12) Now I am not suggesting that this “ring of truth” consideration is supposed to eclipse God’s truth as taught in the Bible. It is of course subjective, but I still think it can play a helpful role if we recognize it as an inner prodding to search further. Don’t obey it, but by all means pay attention to it.
Which policy seems more aligned with the common sense Jehovah gave us? Hearing an opposer out, making sure you understand his position, then prayerfully turning to God’s Word for the answer? Or vehemently warning the flock, under penalty of discipline, not to dare speak with anyone who tries to show us why the Watchtower Society is wrong?
I recall when, in the early 1990s, the radio broadcasting company I worked for brought a News/Talk station to our market. I was exposed to many strong-minded talk show hosts, but noticed a difference between two of them. One was Ken Hamblin, known as the Black Avenger. The other was G. Gordon Liddy, known for his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Both of them were conservative individuals who would probably nearly always agree on what constitutes “truth.” But Hamblin would not let callers with whom he disagreed speak for more than about ten seconds. If he disagreed he would interrupt them passionately, saying he wasn’t going to let them spread such wrong-minded ideas over his program. On the other hand Liddy was most courteous to his opposers, allowing them more than sufficient time to present their case. Afterward he would explain why he disagreed, politely state that “we shall have to agree to disagree,” and thank them for their call. Liddy’s manner demonstrated a position of confidence in the things he believed. Hamblin’s shouting down of the opposition made me wonder if he felt his detractors might be right after all, and that he’d best quash them quickly before they had a chance to disprove him.
I’ll also liken this policy to the responsibility parents have of raising a child. Let’s say, for instance, that this is a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses. And let’s say the parents are concerned that a teacher or worldly child will say something that may lead the child to believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have the truth. There are two options. The parents can explain to their child that others may be expected to say such things, and that they can help him learn how to use the Bible to disprove the things said—both for the opposers and for himself. The other option? They can take measures to ensure that no one ever challenges the organization in the presence of their child. It probably wouldn’t work to follow ahead of him everywhere he goes, threatening Non-Witnesses who might want to dispute the organization. So they instead caution him to run away anytime it happens, teaching him that God will be angry if he does listen, even threatening him with disciplinary action if he should ever be tempted to hear them out.
I have certainly not presented abundant scriptural evidence as to why this flashpoint is wrong. I have only appealed to what the Watchtower itself calls “the ring of truth.” For me, the above does not have it.
