Headship and WT's Changed Understanding

Bobcat

I don't think anyone has mentioned that the February 2021 Study WT (p. 15, 16; par. 8) changed WT's long standing view on headship within the congregation. WT used to view all baptized males as being the head of all baptized sisters.

This view led to such absurdities as a sister having to wear a head covering on a Bible study because her baptized 10 year old son was sitting in on the study with her.

As might be expected, the study article avoids any mention of the long-standing past wrong view of the WT (along with all the embarrassment that may have accompanied that wrong view). I posted about this on this board a few years ago but I wasn't able to locate the post. But I did copy the post onto another board. It can be found in the link in this post (off-site).

For reference, this thread has numerous references to WT publications showing WT's past view. I linked to it in case these references disappear from the WT Publication Index.

skin

This view led to such absurdities as a sister having to wear a head covering on a Bible study because her baptized 10 year old son was sitting in on the study with her.

Is this no long the case? I was semi listening in to this study but didn't pick up on this if it has changed? They still mentioned that if a sister was in a teaching role , she had to wear a head covering.

Bobcat

It would be easy to have missed the changed WT view. The article makes absolutely no mention of the fact that this was a change in view.

One paragraph talks about how some people might sort of push an elder into thinking he is a head over sisters when they come to him looking for him to make decisions for them. But the reality was that the WT held brothers to be the spiritual head over sisters. The sisters would naturally think that they should go to the elders for direction, just like a child might go to a parent for direction.

Someone of Reddit also commented on the fact that there was a box in the study article describing the role of the GB. But that it was rather noticeable that the box did not point out the obvious - that if brothers are not spiritual heads of sisters, then, the GB are not heads either.

The whole article was curious about what it didn't point out. It was like it wanted it to appear that this was always the case.

I might add that I went to their online library to check the Publications Index under headship. Under headship within the congregation they have the Feb 2021 article referenced. No other references are listed. Yet, the last link in my first post of this thread is to a thread that has literally dozens of WT publication references to the old headship view.

I wonder if they've scrubbed the Index of the old viewpoint?

neat blue dog

The WT article in question reenforces the practice of head coverings around any baptized male (or unbaptized husband). It says that they are not every sister's head, BUT that it's for organization's sake, so nothing is changed.

waton

they are not every sister's head, BUT that it's for organization's sake

nbd: The basic premise is, that the males have the teaching role, the firstborn males in the family, tribes.

whenever a lady has to step in, she covers her head. no big deal all ladies had their head covered all the time back then in bible writing times. so:

when "sisters" now have the major teaching role in the comments on wt material, at least they should cover their head. but as 1 Cor 14, 1 Tim. 2. clearly states, be quiet for a change to at least give a veneer to the claim that wt is a bible based organisation.

Eve, assumed to be in the nude, should have had a headcovering, because she spoke for the small congregation she was part of. or call her husband and then take the covering off.

mynameislame

With all the flip flops I wonder if the WT even knows what the current beliefs are on anything. Do they have a master book with all the current beliefs?

It has always been my understanding that the elders don't speak to a wife directly but should go through the husband. Which has problems of it's own.

This whole thing is probably because they're having a hard time getting young men to reach out for "privileges".

Getting to handle the microphones isn't the thrill it once was.

On a side note those study articles have stopped even pretending they aren't spoon feeding you what they want you to believe anymore. Ask a question and provide the answer underneath. At least we used to read the paragraph before they told us what to think.

Vidiot

mynameislame - "...This whole thing is probably because they're having a hard time getting young men to reach out for 'privileges'..."

A strong argument could definitely be made.

Plus, there's a possibility their tax-exemption might be in danger if they don't at least attempt to adapt to changing federal laws regarding registered charities.

Some of us suspect that was the real reason they discontinued the bookstudy in peoples' homes; as quite a number of child abuse allegations involved bookstudy locations.

JWTom

All: What is insane, is that in the middle of a pandemic that is going on and on with many JWs experiencing significant financial and health impacts........JW.org is publishing things like the "finer points on why a head covering is or is not needed in varying circumstances with nuanced changes from previous beliefs related to women within the religion". Most don't remember anything about the old policy and do not care (and will not remember) anything about the new policy! LOL

Vidiot: I agree that the Book Study was killed simply due to overall liability. We hosted the BS for many years and even had to deal with the local BOE assigning a convicted molester to come visit our house for BS. Which we had to force them to correct since they were evidently clueless to even know they should not do that.

dropoffyourkeylee

It may take years, but I believe that eventually the WT will allow women in teaching roles. Their position is so antiquated and ridiculous as to be untenable in the long run.

Konagirl

What’s totally skewed with wt teaching, is if a woman must spiritually submit to a man as head over her, will that man be accountable for her actions at the return of Christ? Not even her own husband has spiritual authority over her.

Rom 6:16 - "Do you not know that if you keep presenting yourselves to anyone as slaves to obey him, you are slaves of him because you obey him, either of sin with death in view or of obedience with righteousness in view?”

Head covering:

“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” 1 Cor 11:4,5,10,13-16

Headship and WT's Changed Understanding

Share this