"What should you do when directed to stop preaching?" KM question box

by slimboyfat 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  We had that question as an item in the Service Meeting tonight. The answer was that we should comply immediately whether it is a police officer or just a caretaker of a block of flats who asks us to stop. We shouldn't answer back or dispute the issue. We should be reasonable and stop preaching straight away and leave the area.

  I thought Witnesses in times past would rather go to prison that stop preaching. Whatever happened to standing up for their rights? Didn't they used to coordinate campaigns specifically in areas where they had been told to stop preaching just to force the issue? Is Rutherford turning in his grave right now?
• 

  Satanus

  The gb has turned into wimps. Rutherford would sack the lot, in an instant.

  *** w53 8/15 p. 484 Is Compromise Excusable? ***
  
  When officials demanded that they stop preaching, they plainly stated: “Whether it is righteous in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, make your decision. But as for us, we cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard.” And again, “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 4:19, 20; 5:29, NW.
  
  Compromise is compromise, whether done by ourselves or by others, and we may never view it with equanimity as though at times there were extenuating circumstances. For us to hold that it is excusable for others to compromise is to provide justification for our own vacillating and apostatizing in times of stress. We may leave no such vulnerable spot in our spiritual armor. Like the apostles we must be determined to obey Jehovah rather than men; and that we can do if we look to Jehovah for help and fear him and not man.
  
  Christian integrity can be maintained in spite of totalitarian pressure, and is being maintained by Jehovah’s servants throughout the world. Look at Jehovah’s servants in Eastern Germany.

  *** w50 11/15 pp. 444-445 pars. 19-20 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
  
  But any law and demand made in conflict with the superior laws and commandments of God they will not obey, for that would mean to render to “Caesar” what belongs to God.
  
  20 Jesus’ apostles took this position. In their day the Jewish Sánhedrin at Jerusalem was charged with certain judicial and legal functions by Caesar’s government. But it was not for this reason part of the “superior authorities” among Jesus’ followers. Jesus had separated his disciples from the natural Israelites and had formed them into a spiritual Israel, “the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16) So the Jewish Sánhedrin was no longer a governing body among God’s true people, but was an alien governmental body now. Its being a religious body of priests and clergymen added nothing to its power over Jewish Christians. So when it demanded of the apostles that they stop preaching Jesus Christ to the people at Jerusalem, Peter and John answered the Sánhedrin: “Whether it is righteous in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, make your decision. But as for us, we cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard.” A second time before the Sánhedrin for refusing to obey their court order, Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men. The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, . . . And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit which God has given to those obeying him as ruler.” (Acts 4:19, 20 and 5:29-32, NW) But for this refusal to obey the anti-God order of the Jewish Supreme Court Peter and the other apostles could not be accused of being anarchists or subversive. God gave them and not the Sánhedrin his holy spirit, thus showing whom he approved and authorized.

  S
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yep, how the mighty have fallen. Gone in a few short decades from fearless defenders of the truth to whimpering sycophants. It's articles and talks like this that make me wonder if they really are running out of steam now. It's all a bit respectable and a bit comfy these days and they got no fight left in them.
• 

  leavingwt

  From a legal standpoint, this is the smart thing to do. Beat cops and deputies have little patience for folks resisting their commands.

  This allows the free team of WT attorneys to fight it out in court, and nobody has to throw any punches.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Yep, how the mighty have fallen. Gone in a few short decades from fearless defenders of the truth to whimpering sycophants.

  The Watchtower was in different stages. In Rutherford's day, they were a new religion struggling to gain adherents. His strategy was designed to call attention to the religion. It was a show. He aggressively promoted pacifism during WWII, which brought a lot of free publicity for the Watchtower. He had his followers publicly confront other religions by blasting phonographs with his sermons outside of "worldly" churches.

  Today, the WT has reached its peak and is trying to maintain its empire, i.e., keep it from crumbling. They don't need the free publicity anymore. They're much more concerned with government bans, fines, and lawsuits that might threaten their stability as a result of their members' behavior.
• 

  Awen

  Also Jesus said that if anyone did not want to hear the message, we should kick the dust from our shoes and move on. It really depends upon the situation. Notice that when before government and religious leaders, people were encouraged to continue preaching, but when in fron of the common person, they were to give the common person a choice. Government and religious leaders had far reaching influence, more so than the everyday person. Hence the differences in when and how to preach.
• 

  WTWizard

  And, in the case where it's a managed apartment complex and the directive is in response to tenants complaining, they will send the hounders to coerce the management to allow the witlesses back against the express wishes of the tenants. And, if that doesn't work, they will go to court and force them to allow witlesses back in. And, with the whopper embarrassments that some witlesses are causing (including the ones involving killing babies, as well as the more common pedophile ones), this exposes the tenants to more than a nuisance.

  Suppose the witlesses are kicked off the property in response to parents with legitimate issues about the pedophiles within the witless ranks. The witlesses leave, and soon the hounders are hounding the management to allow the witlesses back. The management doesn't give in, so the witlesses go to court and soon have a court order to allow the witlesses back on the property. Upon which, they have a pedophile on their team--and precisely the parents who were worried about it have their child molested by one of those pedophiles! All because the witlesses used the courts to force the management to allow the witlesses back--and there isn't a damn thing the management can do about it!

  What ever happened to upholding people's decisions to not join that religion?
• 

  wobble

  How common is it your side of the pond to go to court over this ?

  Here in the U.K so far as I know. they just seem to get the names and addresses of residents, from the Electoral Roll, and mail them as individuals, although most congos. are lazy enough not to bother with that, they just ask to leave a bit of literatrash in the lobby and residents can pick it up if they wish.

  I am not sure that here we would win a right of access in the Court, it is a much more secular society here, and we don't have the same protection for religion to act as it damn well likes enshrined in law.

  Love

  Wobble
• 

  LUKEWARM

  this is further discussed here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/182576/1/Is-the-WTS-compromising-its-stand-towards-preaching-e28093-Our-kingdom-Ministry-2009-Question-Boxe280a6
• 

  slimboyfat

  From a legal standpoint, this is the smart thing to do. Beat cops and deputies have little patience for folks resisting their commands.
  This allows the free team of WT attorneys to fight it out in court, and nobody has to throw any punches.

  Well sure, it makes sense and is more "reasonable", but my point is, it is a far cry from when they were encouraging parents to snatch children from hospital to avoid blood, telling German Witnesses to spread anti-government tracts when under fear of arrest and imprisonment, organizing mass witnessing campaigns in US states where the authorities had tried to stop them preaching, or instructing youngsters that they must go to prison rather than accept alternative service in place of military service.

  A few years ago there was a scientific paper written about Jehovah's Witnesses that argued they have become much more acquiescent in their relations with state governments ever since lawyers took a greater role in the organization. Since that article was writtern that trend has continued.

  P. Cote, and J. T. Richardson, "Disciplined Litigation, Vigilant Litigation, and Deformation: Dramatic Organization Change in Jehovah’s Witnesses," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40 (1) (March 2001)