In the January 8, 1947 Awake! magazine the following article appeared.
The above article was published under the Watchtower presidency of Nathan Knorr. How does this view compare to Knorr's predecessors?
Under Pastor C.T.Russell the following statement made clear how Bible Students were to view the subject of disfellowship.
"Rather, like the church of Rome their ["Religious leaders of today"] influence is exerted to restrain investigation within the sectarian limits. With the implied threat of disfellowship, they urge their ministers and students not to search continually for truth, but to accept the voice of their sect as infallible." Watchtower 1887 Apr p.923
A strong contrast between Russell's view and the Religious leadership of Christendom is presented. Russell says false religious strategy is to stifle investigation outside of official church teaching by threat of Disfellowship. Russell's emphasis is that such a threat was to protect a sense of infallible teaching by preventing any personal member's continual search for truth.
J.F.Rutherford continued this policy and viewpoint as evidenced in the following article.
"The great adversary is wily, and at all times is quick to appeal to passion. He persuades some that they must take a radical stand against some secular work or activity, and to proceed at once to disfellowship others who cannot conscientiously take this same stand. Somehow they seem to think that their radical stand entitles them in a very special sense to divine favour and blessing. his attitude leads them to violate principle in various ways: (1) By judging and condemning others who do not see as they do; (2) By refusing to fellowship those who still believe in the ransom, the restitution, the high calling." Watchtower 1919 Feb 1 p.6385
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Can we say the three Presidents of the Watchtower are of like mind in viewing Disfellowship policy as something Christendom uses more as a threat
to stifle honest inquiry rather than a legitimate tool only to be applied to those who reject the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
Yes!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, what happens next that completely REVERSES this view just 5 years later??
Suddenly, an enforcement policy equating association with a DF'd person with....WITCHCRAFT appears!!
In the Watchtower 1955 October 1 p.607, associating with the disfellowshipped became ITSELF a reason to be disfellowshipped:
If a publisher refuses to do this and ignores the prohibition on associating with the disfellowshipped one, that publisher is rebelling against the congregation of Jehovah, and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. If after sufficient warning the publisher persists in associating with the disfellowshipped person instead of aligning himself with Jehovahs organization he also should be disfellowshipped.
A chilling article follows in 1987 requiring members to spy on and inform on each other!
"This command from the Highest Level of authority in the universe put the responsibility upon each Israelite to report to the judges any serious wrongdoing that he observed so that the matter might be handled. While Christians are not strictly under the Mosaic Law, its principles still apply in the Christian congregation. Hence, there may be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is found in private records. But if a Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a Christian must obey God as ruler rather than men. Acts 5:29" Watchtower 1987 Sep 1 p.13
By the year 2011, on page 60 of Shepherding the Flock of God:
"Though this is not an exhaustive list, brazen conduct may be involved in the following if the wrongdoer has an insolent, contemptuous attitude made evident by a practice of these things:
Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped nonrelatives despite repeated counsel." p.60
The Governing Body invaded the privacy of even the bedrooms of their membership with an extraordinary on again/off again confusion about what was right and wrong!
An erratic pattern of denunciations soon followed targeting matters not specifically outlined in scripture. Concerning oral sex, for example:
- a disfellowshipping offence - Watchtower 1974 November 15 p.704
- no longer an offence - Watchtower 1978 February 15 pp.30-32
- once again an offence - Watchtower 1983 March 15 p.31
The following rose to the level of offenses as well:
- Gambling - common throughout history, such as the casting of lots over Jesus clothing
- Use of Drugs such as marijuana - in common use in the first century
- Celebrations - Romans 14:1-18 specifically says not to judge anyone over the observance of days
The Bible counsels kindness and forgiveness for person's requiring discipline:
2 Corinthians 2:5-8 " Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extentnot to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him."
Watchtower policy is harsh and threatening with an overtone of Jihadist fanaticism :
"Jesus encouraged his followers to love their enemies, but God's Word also says to "hate what is bad." When a person persists in a way of badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of his make-up, then in order to hate what is bad a Christian must hate the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked."
Watchtower 1961 Jul 15 p.420
"Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship..."
Watchtower 1952 Nov 15 p.703
Paul's counsel differs dramatically.
When discussing a person seduced by apostasy Paul said at 2 Thessalonians 3:15:
And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
The question remains: WHAT HAPPENED between 1947 and 1952 that caused a 180 turn from established scriptural policies?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In 1940, Hayden C. Covington—then the Society’s legal counsel and one of the “other sheep,” with the earthly hope—was elected a director of the Society. (John 10:16) He served as the Society’s vice president from 1942 to 1945.
Hayden Covington was by all accounts an extraordinary force of nature and a natural fighter who never backed down from a confrontation either legal or personal. His hero was Watchtower Society President J.F.Rutherford who was also a staunch advocate of confrontation of one's foes.
In 1942, Rutherford was replaced by Nathan Knorr as the Society's leader.
According to Covington, it was himself who "had the votes" to become the President. But, Knorr had "connived" him out of it.
An immediate clash of personalities resulted....at first UNKNOWN to Covington! Only gradually did the opposition become clear.
In an interview years later *, Covington referred to Knorr in pejorative terms. He called him "sneaky" and a "cobra" and called into question Knorr's courage because of having witnessed him back down from altercations with Catholics in a public forum.
Knorr did not want Covington as his vice-President. Rutherford insisted on his death bed that Covington be appointed. Knorr was poorly educated and Covington considered him ignorant.
Knorr was rankled by Covington's superior education and attempts to influence Society policy through intimidation. Consequently, Knorr engineered a change in policy to exclude non-anointed person's (other sheep) from serving as a governing body member. By 1945 Covington was forced out.
A public relations spin was offered that Covington had "graciously declined to serve" in view of the new policy. Everybody who ever met Covington knew quite well he NEVER backed down or withdrew!
Knorr's champion and fellow conspirator, Fred Franz, created the new policy in order to install Franz in place of Covington.
Covington was retained as legal representative, however, attaining Supreme Court case wins in 80% of the the lawsuits filed.
Two polices of Jehovah's Witnesses may well have been directly impacted by the personality of Covington and the discord with Franz and Knorr. The first was
the policy on Higher Education. Knorr considered Covington's irrepressible ego to be a direct result of "higher education" and a superior attitude.
As animosty grew, public statements by Covington embarassed Knorr and Franz's sense of absolute rightness.
Testifying in a legal case concerning Matthew Barrie we find the following from:
http://thegoverningbody.org/matthew-barrie-jehovahs-witness-judicial-hearing-glasgow-scotland-4/
Walsh Case (See essay The Martyring of Matthew Barrie – A Study in Ethics), and it was a chap who had some legal difference with the Organisation and the vice-president of the Society, Hayden Covington was testifying on the stand and the line of questioning led them down the route of ‘false prophet,’ and he asked various questions regarding the Organisation’s teachings and beliefs over the proceeding decades. (16:10)
And Brother Covington answered in the affirmative: ‘Is it conceded to be the case that your organisation has made false prophecies? And he said, ‘Yes,’ and he said, ‘Would that mean that you’re false prophets?’ And he said, ‘That is conceded to be true.’
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Knorr and Franz braced themselves.
How could either of them win a battle with Covington in the court of public opinion, in an actual lawsuit or otherwise? Covington was brilliant!
Only one avenue of approach remained where the "high ground" would be created to virtually demand all JW's worldwide osctracize Covington (or any other clever antagonists who challenged their athority) for Apostasy if they could engineer grounds for disfellowshipping!
Consequently, the sudden stiffening of penalty and harshness of attitude immediately began to set the stage for an arsenal against any (even Covington) who dared take on the Governing Body!
In the above speculation, I am saying that disfellowship policy was emboldened in reaction to perceived internal enemies and, once in place, grew stronger or weaker as threats came and went over the years.
Post 1975 the internal murmurings let loose a virtual jihad against any nay-sayers. All of which is a 180 degree flip-flop on Society history of this policy.
*