Governing Body--Unanimous or Two-Thirds Majority?

blondie

In the Bible in discussing the debacle about circumcision in the early Christian community, the WTS states about what they consider the GB:

w98 11/1 p. 5 How to Solve Problems Peacefully

After a Scriptural discussion, the apostles and Jerusalem elders came "to a unanimous accord" not to burden uncircumcised believers unnecessarily but to admonish them "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication."

Yet former Governing Body member Raymond Franz in his book Crisis of Conscience reveals how a virtual coup against third president Nathan Knorr resulted in a new process for determining doctrine, a two-thirds majority vote of the Governing Body now being required for any doctrinal change to take place.

I notice that there is conveniently nothing in the WTS publications about this (if there is, tell me where, please).

I have known for some through Bethel contacts that this was true. It is noteworthy that nothing appears in writing since it would make people wonder. Why did the 1st century GB do things unanimously and the current GB only needs a 2/3 vote. I do know that elder bodies are supposed to be nominally unanimous in their selections of elders and MS.

I guess the other 1/3 weren't plugged into the holy spirit that day.

Blondie

freedom96

Here is the one that gets me:

Not all of the governing body thinks that taking blood is wrong.

How can they sit there and at least not all be in agreement over an issue that has killed thousands of witnesses?

That is beyond me.

Pistoff

WHAT first century GB? The older men in Jerusalem? I can't help but think that they were just the remnants of the Jewish faction, though christian, and spoke mostly for the jewish converts; they campaigned for circumcision and for observance of portions of the law.

Is the term GB used in the body at all? Even in the WT quote, the term GB is not used; instead it is:

the apostles and Jerusalem elders

When read in that way, it doesn't sound so much like the modern day to me; just one faction of the first century body of believers who wanted to influence what the christians needed to observe. Their pro-Law bias is evident in wanting to preserve the ban of eating of animal blood and on circumcision. Later they influenced Paul to go to the temple for ceremonies involving young men in order to convince the Jerusalem christians that Paul was not in favor of abandoning the Law ( he of course was) and Paul went along with it, even though in Paul's letters he says that the law was taken out of the way by Jesus' death.

gumby

Had there not been asskissers of those with authority, perhaps many decisions would not have been reached as they were.

Gumby

JeffT

The idea that anything resembling a "Governing Body" existed in the first century is ludicrous How long did it take for a letter to get from, say Greece to Jerusalem, six months? And the reply, another six months. The kind of control the WTBS exerts simply wasn't possible. That's why Paul talked about the qualifications for an elder. The guys running the local church had to be smart enough to make their own decisions without checking with somebody else.

Can you picture that happening in the org today?

Gadget

Is this similar to a judicial committee where only 2 of the three need to agree to be able to df someone? The other elder who disagrees is required to agree with the other 2 for the sake of unity and so a unaminus vote is acheived. Is this the same for the governing body, giving written evidence of unanimus decisions for the sake of unity?

TheOldHippie

I don't have the CD-Rom here now, but something was written a few years back on this, blondie, in a Watchtower article, and probably in the Proclaimers book as well. If someone does some checking, it will be found. It was a text telling how, if there was no 2/3 majority, the question would rest till a later time, when it would be raised again. Also, it was like that at Russell's time.

blondie

Thanks, everyone. Okay, let's concede for the sake of my question, that as far as the WTS is concerned there was a GB in the 1st century and there is one now. The scriptural validity of the GB is another but good point.

But if the WTS says that their GB today is a continuation of the GB in the 1st century, why is the seeming pattern of a unanimous vote in the 1st century not being followed by the GB of today?

OH, I have the most current WT-CD and have searched all statements about the GB and voting. Nada. This policy lives through word of mouth from Bethel insiders, in good standing or not (Ray Franz). This having been done in Russell's era does not explain why they did not follow the pattern of the 1st century of animous votes.

Is this similar to a judicial committee where only 2 of the three need to agree to be able to df someone? The other elder who disagrees is required to agree with the other 2 for the sake of unity and so a unaminus vote is acheived. Is this the same for the governing body, giving written evidence of unanimus decisions for the sake of unity?

Evidently, not the same for the GB, Gadget. I have been told that the elders don't all have to agree, but they have to support the majority's decision. Duh! That means they must work to make the decision succeed. Not the elder bodies I know about. Man, some have had such big disagreements that the activities of the congregation were locked up and the WTS had to send in outside elders to break the roadblock. Then, dissenting elders were told to support the WTS or be removed. Blondie (still looking on the WT-CD)

TheOldHippie

I'll do some checking myself, blondie, and some old-fashioned-looking-thru-the-magazines as soon as I get home this evening.

As for JC/Elder meetings, I had the great moments a couple of times of being the single vote / voice against the majority, but holding firm to my conviction and thus barring a unanimous decision, and after looong discussions being able to get the others along with me in my view, thus making a 360 degrees / U-turn. In a JC, I was told I could freely vote against the majority, or decide to leave, and they would then have to appoint a new member and run the trial once more.

In the long run, of course, there was no home run for the liberals, as I was finally kicked out of the good-old-boys'-club.

hooberus

There was no governing body in Russels time.

speaking of voting by majority, in 1917 the majority of the directors (which the Society says today were the governing body back then!) were kicked out by the minority!

Governing Body--Unanimous or Two-Thirds Majority?

Share this