I came across this Letter in the Tablet. It isn't available online so I have had to type it in. I've ignored formatting (italics etc) and can't be held responsible if I've mistranscribed anything from the original.
**************
Sir, When Stephen Bates dipped his jam jar into the Watchtower's waters, it looks as though he got more than he bargained for. His article “Trouble at the Watchtower'' (3 November) provides a rather concise survey of the problems confronting Jehovah's Witnesses. But can a root cause for these problems be identified? And why do the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's (WTBTS) leaders so often transform matters that should be trifling into touchstones of theocratic fidelity?
The answer can be traced to what is, in practice, the fundamental doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses; that they are God's sole “channel of communication” with mankind. This remarkable doctrine, which has become a maxim often stated in the movement's Watchtower magazine, provides the theological basis for its stringent definition of apostasy: “Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.'' This definition, which is more akin to heresy than apostasy, is the official guideline used by chapel elders who preside, in Star Chamber fashion, at the judicial hearings which regularly face those accused of apostasy.
Obviously the leaders of any religion that officially teaches that it is God’s unique mouthpiece will have a difficult time explaining changes to doctrine. Unfortunately the WTBTS also has the somewhat compulsive habit of attaching specific dates and time periods to Bible prophecies, such as Armageddon. As these dates and periods expire, as they all have so far, with expectations unfulfilled, the underlying doctrines must be altered. To effect change, the leaders may claim to have received “New Light” which the faithful must immediately embrace. Failed prophetic speculations by the leaders are often attributed to their own human imperfection which caused them to “run ahead”, but only “out of enthusiasm” and with the “purest of motives”. Intentional obfuscation is also employed, as with changes related to medical uses of blood, with new policies being introduced so gradually that no one really notices.
The WTBTS reaction to the UN fiasco is a case in point. Their London spokesman stated in a letter published on a Witness talk-board that the organisation affiliated “for the sole purpose of obtaining access to the UN's library''. Further, the letter implied that at the time the WTBTS applied to the UN – in 1991 - no requirements were in place that a non-governmental organization (NGO) must actively “support the UN Charter'' and “mobilise public opinion in support of the UN and its agencies.'' Despite the existence of the 1968 UN Resolutions 1296 and 1297, which clearly spell out what is required of NGOs, the WTBTS leaders know full well that within the Witness community they will be believed.
Still, many Witnesses do recognise the mounting problems confronting their faith; yet they feel trapped, caught between the uninterested or even hostile audience they meet in their door-to-door preaching and a leadership they fear will accuse them of stubbornly asking “apostate questions'' if they do not acquiesce in the WTBTS stonewalling. For many, leaving is not an option. It may not always be the best solution anyway. For those who leave, or are ejected, often do so in a state of spiritual and emotional shipwreck, feeling that they have nowhere to go. Too often the result is depression, alcoholism and sometimes suicide.
So the next time two cheery middle-aged women knock on the door unannounced, armed with Watchtower and Awake! magazines, perhaps the kindest and most Christian thing to do would be to engage them in a gentle discussion about the serious issues facing their own version of the Christian religion. For while the Watchtower’s leaders know their flock - only too well, it seems – their flock plainly do not know them.