Most influential branch offices?

by comment 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  comment

  Which are the most influential branch offices of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world?

  For some time I have been wondering whether there are tendencies toward either greater liberalism or greater conservatism among various branch committees, and whether any of this could have an impact on Brooklyn's policies.

  Here are my guesses in order (although I can't claim any insider knowledge):

  1) United States (they've just set up their own branch committee, although presumably it will be in lockstep with...well, either the Governing Body or the Legal Department?)

  2) Canada (because of the geographical proximity and the history of tying in the Canadian Bethel family electronically for special talks and announcements and so forth)

  3) Britain (like Canada, there's a cultural connection and there have been several British members of the GB; also, the Society incorporated a corporation in Britain early in its history)

  4) Australia (similar to Britain, though more distant)

  5) Germany (due to the impact the Selters printing operation has on the work in Europe)

  You'd also have to say these "Top Five" countries have been pretty well-represented in Brooklyn over the years. (i.e. Western=good, Anglo-Saxon=better, American=best)

  After that, who knows? But I would guess Finland (heavily involved with the Baltic states and Russia since the fall of Communism), France, and maybe Japan.

  Of course, there are branch offices in lands where there are more Witnesses than those latter three. But somehow, from what I've read and heard from both sanctioned and unsanctioned sources, I doubt many branch offices in non-Western or Third World countries are "taken seriously" in terms of having any bearing on the overall course the organization takes.

  Thoughts?

  comment
• 

  sawthelight

  don't know about influence, but those probably contribute the most money,+any other "white" branches and japan.
  sawthelight
• 

  sawthelight

  just remembered, its not the job of anyone at a branch to influence the GB, just to suck up to the GB in hopes of being appointed to the GB.
  sawthelight
• 

  ozziepost

  Comment,

  I suggest that this should be the other way around i.e. which branch do the GB influence the most?

  Branches do not influence the GB (or more aptly, the BORG) since they, the branches, are directed from Brooklyn and Patterson.

  As our zone overseer from Brooklyn (McCanty) expressed it in his talk in Sydney "it's ruled from the top down". Nice to know, eh?

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "So often, the unpolished
  the disjointed
  Is on its way to the truth
  Ahead of the finished
  the polished."
  Ken Walsh, Sometimes I Weep
• 

  comment

  Your general point is well-taken, Ozzie. Yes, it's primarily "top-down." But some of the branch commmittees are undoubtedly in more frequent contact with/more "respected by" the GB in terms of their observations/reports from the field being taken into consideration when new policies are being formulated. That's all I meant.

  comment
• 

  comment

  Anyone else with some insight?
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello everyone

  To Ozziepost:

  "Branches do not influence the GB (or more aptly, the BORG) since they, the branches, are directed from Brooklyn and Patterson.
  As our zone overseer from Brooklyn (McCanty) expressed it in his talk in Sydney "it's ruled from the top down".

  EXCELLENT answer, btw it is the TRUTH!

  And " from the top down "…a PYRAMIDAL STRUCTURE!!!

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
• 

  comment

  Perhaps I should have phrased this question a little differently.

  For instance: "Which branch offices are most likely to produce prospective members of the Governing Body?"

  Or: "Which branch offices' questions or concerns are most likely to receive a timely or thought-out response from Brooklyn, due to the perceived importance of that branch in the overall scheme of things?"

  comment
• 

  Maximus

  Comment, you give them credit they do not deserve. Read Ray Franz about how they picked someone from the German branch for the GB. Requirement one is that you partake of the emblems. That's requirement two as well.

  As to your question, I have some thoughts. But ... Pinpointing a branch with wise or progressive heads on this board would be like painting a target behind someone. They would be all over that like a fat man on a lawn chair, with an inspection visit from Executive in Brooklyn.

  Once upon a time a thriving branch like Japan would be a flagship. Not today.

  Would love to hear some stories from our friends in the Northwest about GB member Guy Pierce, who used to brag of careening around Seattle (?) slopes with no brakes while pioneering, under Divine protection. Real wisdom!

  Ozzie, was that name McCanty or Mercante? <grin> (Hint: Italian.) "Ruled"? He should know. Long-time secretary to GB.

  Seriously, Comment, it's been described as being like the old TV show where the guy spinning the plates on a stick gets one going, another starts to wobble and fall, he spins, but has to rush to another one. To go to another metaphor, squeaky wheels get grease. And hope springs eternal in places that seem to be promising ...

  Maximus
• 

  comment

  Thanks for the clarification, Maximus. Just an intriguing line of thought...no more. Ideas like these come up, because, when you're a Witness, you are basically conditioned to think of the Society as one homogenous unit, passing on the spiritual food straight from Jehovah. When you get out of that mindset, you start to analyze things in a more "human light" (i.e. what are the politics of this situation and who stands to gain what by making certain moves?).

  A parallel example, then, might be the various Soviet republics during the USSR period. Even though some republics were more or less prosperous than others and had different cultures, they all took orders from Moscow.

  comment