Our (JW) genetic mutation

by Jalisco 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jalisco

  The spiritual DNA of our faith was "Protestant" for over 100 years, until 1985, after which it changed to a Catholic sense. What do I mean? For example, for decades we were presented with the example of the Bereans who "were more noble-minded than those of Thessalonica" because they went to see in the scriptures if what Paul preached to them was really like that. This personal verification of the scriptures is typical of the "Protestant" approach. But even more impressive is the second question that was asked of those being baptized until 1985. That is: "On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself without reserve to God to do his will from now on as *he will reveal it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit*?" [W 1/10/73 pg.600 pr.25]

  That is, it speaks of the Will of God that "*YOU* will reveal through Jesus Christ..the Bible ...under the Holy Spirit"...it seems like another religion. And in fact it was.

  Since 1985, however, the Thessalonians have been increasingly placed before us and less so the Bereans, the Thessalonians in fact "accepted the Word (preached by Paul) as the Word of God" [1 Thes.2:13] without going to look at the scriptures like the Bereans. And unlike the Protestant cut of the second question before immersion, since 1985 this one has been placed:

  "Do you understand that your dedication and your baptism identify you as a Jehovah's Witness *associated with the organization directed by the spirit of God*?" [W 1/10/1985 pg.20].

  With this change of direction, the individual believer is subjected to the organization that is mentioned here for the first time. The slight syntactic adjustments that followed have not modified the structure of the new "Catholic" DNA. I say Catholic because, unlike the Protestant faith, the Catholic recognizes a centralized spiritual guide identified with the government of the Church located in Rome with the Pope at its head. The teaching of the doctrine occurs through the magisterium of the Church and the believer entrusts himself to it, recognizing it as a divine guide and disavowing his own competence in understanding the Scriptures.

  Why this shift towards Catholicism in an ecclesiological sense? The most reasonable answer is to maintain greater unity, which perhaps is better called uniformity. It is known that Protestantism has produced a great ecclesial fragmentation into many different streams and denominations based on the differences in doctrine that the various groups formulated autonomously. Catholicism, on the other hand, remains a single entity under the government of Rome and the Pope, at least formally. Here, since unity (or rather uniformity!) has been chosen, the hope is that we continue with the imitation of Catholicism also in the acceptance of the numerous religious movements and orders that express different ways of living the faith. In fact, we see notable differences in the "way" of expressing the faith, for example, between the Franciscan friars and the Dominicans, between the Jesuits and the socialist priests like Don Gallo, between the order of Opus Dei and the Neocatechumenal Servants of Jahve... and I have only given a few examples. They are all "under" the guidance of Rome but are free to live their way of understanding the Christian vocation. Rome accepts them and praises them even recognizing that it does not have the exclusive right to the work of the Holy Spirit. As long as they accept a fundamental belief and, at least formally, submission to the Catholic magisterium. Here, if our dear CD did the same among us instead of suppressing the legitimate and blessed variants of Christianity that we also show, we would last as long as the Church after the Protestant Reformation. So we should start from a corpus of doctrines beyond discussion, formulated with carefully chosen words that do not exceed the fingers of both hands. The rest of the teachings will have a lower importance and therefore susceptible to free discussion.

  Returning to the Bereans and Thessalonians... I don't know if it's just a coincidence but how come we don't have a first letter of Paul to the Bereans? And then a Second to the Bereans? While we have 2 to the Thessalonians? Answer: because the Bereans, those who studied the scriptures, coincidentally did not have the spiritual problems that the Thessalonians showed, those who accepted Paul's preaching sight unseen, on trust, without the effort of personally verifying what God's will was with their own mental faculties, the _loghikén latréian_ of Romans 12:1,2. And it is not because there were more disciples in Thessalonica than in Berea, the opposite is true. According to Acts 17 in Thessalonica "some" became believers (v.4) while in Berea "many" (v.12) and precisely because they showed that nobility of mind that pushed them to delve deeply into the Word and convince themselves rationally. Whatever the WT says, the Bereans are better than the Thessalonians. Better to risk a different thought than herds of simpletons who remain spiritual infants always in need of being told what they should do.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Interesting post. The change in wording of the baptismal questions you highlight is significant, but I don’t know it can bear the weight of an entire pivot from Protestant to Catholic ethos you outline. For example, the phrase “the Society” rose to prominence already under Rutherford, and functioned somewhat like a Catholic appeal to authority. This linguistic process is documented, and much lamented, in Timothy White’s book A People for his Name. A similarity in structure between the Watchtower organisation and the Catholic Church, especially following the restructuring in the early 1970s, was also already noted in graphic form by Penton and others in the 1980s.

  From a certain perspective, especially for anyone familiar with the Christadelphian tradition, and to a certain extent Brethren and Presbyterian traditions, one of the remarkable aspects of Watchtower history, especially since the 1930s, has been the striking lack of divisions and splits that chronically plague those other groups. How do we account for that? Surely lots of factors are involved but the centralisation of authority and the “faithful and discreet slave” teaching are surely essential ingredients.

  I very much agree with you (I think) that it would be great if JWs could move to a position of accepting differences of opinion and interpretation to a (far) greater extent than they currently do. Whether this sweet spot can be achieved that you hint at, whereby a Catholic approach to diversity may allow differences to flourish without the Protestant penchant for it resulting in divisions and splits, I do not know. I do know that when divisions on matters of doctrine and policy begin to take hold among a faith group it can become chronic, debilitating, and exhausting for all involved. That is something JWs have never had to contend with, indeed it’s so far outside the JW experience that complacency may make it appear in some sense impossible. But if you open the door to greater variability of belief and practice it might open a door to something that is both unfamiliar and not easy to contend with. I don’t say this makes it not worth doing, but if so it would preferably be with eyes wide open to the challenges and possible consequences.
• 

  Balaamsass2

  Ah...I remember the changes...too well. Bethel went on a witch hunt. Anyone who knew or spent any time with Ray Franz was under a microscope and subject to the inquisition...including myself. I had "shared meals" with Ray and Cynthia in their room! The baptism changes made me choke...they smacked of creature worship.

  It was like a fever in California when the Time magazine story hit the news stands.

  "

  Religion: Witness Under Prosecution

  6 minute read

  Richard N. Ostling

  February 22, 1982 12:00 AM EST

  A secretive and apocalyptic sect shuns a former leader

  For 40 years Raymond Franz devoted his whole being to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The religion responded by raising him to the very top, as a member of its worldwide Governing Body. But it was a difficult period for the leadership. In 1975 the sect faced a debacle: the present world did not vanish as Witness publications had all but guaranteed. In a faith in which doubt is not tolerated, questions inevitably arose in the minds of some believers. Gradually Franz began to question other teachings, and now, in a downfall as dramatic as an excommunication within the College of Cardinals, he has been ostracized, or as the Witnesses say, “disfellowshipped.” The result is that the former leader is being shunned by almost everyone he has ever worked with, cut off from all relatives except his wife, and denied any hope of eternal life.

  Officials of the Watch Tower Society, as the religious organization of 2,257,000 followers is formally known, refused all comment on the unprecedented case. But Franz, 59, reluctantly agreed to break his silence and explain to TIME the accusations against him. In doing so, he provides a rare glimpse inside the secretive headquarters of the tightly organized faith.

  Franz is a third-generation Witness. His uncle, Frederick W. Franz, 88, has been the religion’s top ideologue for decades and, since 1977, its head. Raymond Franz began full-time work for the sect as soon as he finished high school. He suffered penury during 20 years as a missionary in the Caribbean, became a trusted writer of official publications, and joined the 17-member Governing Body in 1971.

  Known to outsiders for their persistent door-to-door proselytizing, Jehovah’s Witnesses exist within what Franz calls a “hermetically sealed” community; every doctrinal blip or scintilla of sin is closely monitored. Nowhere is this more true than at Bethel, the sect’s Brooklyn headquarters. By Franz’s account, reading or studying of the Bible is considered “evil” unless conducted in authorized discussions following Watch Tower doctrinal guides, lest staffers veer into error.

  Because of his own work as an author of an official volume about the Bible and a growing feeling that Watch Tower discipline was too harsh, Franz privately concluded that the religion emphasized human organization rather than biblical teachings. Says he: “While producing people who were outwardly moral, they subverted the essential qualities of humility, compassion and mercy.”

  Franz never hinted at his uncertainties as he delivered speeches in 50 nations through the 1970s. But to ease his internal strain, he took a leave of absence from his Bethel duties early in 1980. Meanwhile, the Governing Body had begun a secret investigation of heresy rumors, and it used star-chamber tactics. Initially there were no direct confrontations. Instead, staff members were allegedly threatened with disfellowshipping to get their testimony about doctrinal discussions with others. On May 21, Franz was summoned to Brooklyn for a fateful grilling by his Governing Body colleagues. Did he doubt that Jehovah had only one chosen organization? Did he question the official End-times chronology? Franz sought to avoid confrontation but could “only bend so far.” It was not enough. Opponents were unable to get a two-thirds majority for his disfellowshipping on the spot, but he was forced to resign from Bethel. In all, about a dozen officials were purged, almost certainly the worst doctrinal crisis Watch Tower headquarters has ever faced.

  But the pursuit of Franz was not over. As a refugee from Bethel and his life’s work, he found himself with few marketable skills, a $10,000 settlement from headquarters and $600 in personal savings. He turned to an old friend in the faith, Peter Gregerson of Gadsden, Ala., who runs a regional supermarket chain. Gregerson loaned Franz and his wife a house trailer to live in and gave him work as a handyman. By 1981 Gregerson too had begun to question Watch Tower dogma and resigned from the faith.

  Six months later, the official Watchtower newspaper announced that the policy of shunning disfellowshipped Witnesses included shunning those like Gregerson who were “disassociated.” Not long afterward, Franz was seen in a restaurant eating a meal with his benefactor Gregerson. That single sighting provided the technical infraction for which Franz was finally disfellowshipped by the Gadsden leaders two months ago. “By one stroke they eliminated all my years of service,” says Franz. “I frankly do not believe there is another organization more insistent on 100% conformity.”

  From the leaders’ viewpoint, however, it was obviously imperative to strike at Franz and the others. The dissenters’ Luther-like emphasis upon “Scripture alone” rather than official interpretation was only one threat to the foundations of the religion. Many other central Watch Tower doctrines were also at stake.

  For one, Witnesses believe that only 144,000 of the faithful (a number taken from Revelation 14: 1-3) will be “born again” and go to heaven. The faith’s rulers, among whom Raymond Franz was once numbered, come from this elite. The “other sheep” who are loyal to the Watch Tower are promised an earthly paradise. Jehovah will shortly annihilate the rest of the human race. The dissenters reject this class system. They contend that the figure of 144,000 is symbolic and that all believers since Christ’s day will go to heaven.

  The Witnesses also teach that the Second Coming occurred secretly in 1914, a date reached by complex historical and biblical rationales; the end of the world system must occur during the present generation (an interpretation of Luke 21: 32: “This generation will not pass away till all has taken place”). The dissidents have come to believe that Christ’s kingdom and the “last days” were inaugurated at about A.D. 33, and that Christ’s Second Coming is a future event.

  The dissenters, in other words, have moved toward conventional Christianity, except for continuing to reject Christ’s divinity. For his part, Franz has not become a bitter Watch Tower antagonist. “There is no life outside the organization” is all he will say about the pain of his shunning. But other ex-Witnesses have launched a barrage of protests, publications and lawsuits. These dissidents contend that roughly 1 million people have left the Watch Tower ranks over the past decade. The Witnesses report that they are still growing, thanks to nonstop recruiting. Still, that success may not go on for long. They have necessarily backed off the 1975 date, but the End must occur during the lifetime of people who still remember the earthly events of 1914. With the rapidly thinning ranks of such oldsters, the Witnesses confront an increasingly troublesome, self-imposed and absolute deadline. —By Richard N. Ostling. Reported by Anne Constable/Atlanta"

  https://time.com/archive/6856641/religion-witness-under-prosecution/
• 

  careful

  when divisions on matters of doctrine and policy begin to take hold among a faith group it can become chronic, debilitating, and exhausting for all involved.

  Precisely why the GB will never give up their absolute control.