I wonder if the Governing Body (GB) knows the trouble the whole thing started....
To be sure, when the GB put into effect that all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses were to have a body of elders that is in existence today, their goal was to meet their own ends. Under a Sub Heading "Gearing Up For Explosive Growth" in their history book "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" they stated....
***
jvchap.15p.233DevelopmentoftheOrganizationStructure***
Jehovah’s servants were determined to continue to yield to divine direction. At a series of conventions held in 1971, attention was directed to the governing arrangements of the early Christian congregation. It was pointed out that the expression pre·sby´te·ros (older man, elder), as used in the Bible, was not limited to elderly persons, nor did it apply to all in the congregations who were spiritually mature. It was especially used in an official sense with reference to overseers of the congregations. (Acts 11:30; 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-3) These received their positions by appointment, in harmony with requirements that came to be part of the inspired Scriptures. (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) Where enough qualified men were available, there was more than one elder in the congregation. (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1) These made up "the body of older men," all of whom had the same official status, and not one of whom was the most prominent or powerful member in the congregation. (1 Tim. 4:14) To assist the elders, it was explained, there were also appointed "ministerial servants," in accord with the requirements set out by the apostle Paul.—1 Tim. 3:8-10, 12, 13.
Fair enough. There is plenty of debate within the Christian world on whether a congregation should have one or many "shepherds", and one's reading of the bible and their interpretation of it determines their structure. When it comes to the world of Jehovah's Witnesses, the history of those men who would be leaders in its individual congregations is fascinating.
Originally, C T Russell, the founder of the movement, was resistant to the idea of having recognized leaders within their study groups. But as they grew in number, he allowed and even encouraged individual congregations to vote who would be the leader, or shepherd.
Russell's sucessor, J F (Judge) Rutherford, was able to take control of the group via legal means, against the wishes of Russell as he stated in his will. When he finally assumed the presidency of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) he quickly moved to consolidate his power. One move he made was to have a "Service Overseer" appointed by Rutherford in each recognized congregation. The idea ostensibly was to make sure that congregations were limited in control of their own destinies. Rutherford wanted to have more centralized control of the congregations. He knew that to totally eliminate democratic elections at that time would cause a coup. It wasn't until 1938 that he was finally able to have all elders appointed directly by the WTBTS. The WT called this "theocratically appointed". It shined up what was essentially another move to centralize power to the President of the WTBTS.
Since then, the "elder arrangement" as it is called has morphed. From 1938 to 1971, a single elder was responsible for each congregation. As the above quote shows, in 1972, multiple elders were appointed where they were deemed qualified.
One of the biggest misconceptions I have observed by both those in and out of the JW organization is the idea that uniformity exists in all congregations. It is an easy assumption to make when you read about all the rules the Governing Body puts out. But to really understand Jehovah's Witnesses, you have to understand the sum of its parts.
One cannot help but realize that when you read Watchtower literature, the agenda behind it is to convince and reassure its readers that the faithul and discreet slave is in charge. But since 1972, the trend has been a de-centralization of power. In 1976, the Governing Body, and not the President of the WTBTS was in charge. Power and responsibilities were divied up. Decisions within committees often reflected the personalities of the men on them.
It stands to reason that the personalities of each body of elders in a single congregation would do the same. Thus, the unity that the GB claims exists is somewhat of a confusing misnomer. Much depends on a body of elders interpretation of the rules the GB sends out, and how (or if) they are applied.
JW's frequently talk about the personality of a congregation. This is a good description. Of course, any church or group will have certain dynamics. But JW's are unique because these dynamics are directly attributable to the personalities, likes and dislikes of the elders for each congregation.
When I was an elder, a Circuit Overseer (CO) met with our body, and he shared a WT article quote that he encouraged us elders to view and use when administering rules in the congregation.
***
w827/15pp.24-25pars.14-15BenefitingFromYourGod-givenConscience***
14 Considering others also involves not asking them to approve of something that is against their consciences. For instance, the congregational elders are responsible for permitting wedding ceremonies in the Kingdom Hall, how these will be conducted, how the hall is decorated, and so forth. The elders in one congregation write: "In one wedding all the bridesmaids walked down the aisle fanning themselves. The next wedding had to outdo the first, so the bridesmaids walked down the aisle twirling umbrellas. The next had to be bigger and better; they wanted twenty bridesmaids and twenty ushers. The hall was starting to be used as a circus."
15 Was this ‘a matter of conscience’ for private decision? No. Even if an engaged couple’s consciences would permit something excessive or outrageous, the collective conscience of the elders could not be ignored. While not wanting to impose their personal tastes, they have at heart the peace, harmony and spirituality of the whole congregation. And they should be conscientiously aiding persons to ‘know how to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is a pillar and support of the truth.’—1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Corinthians 10:31.