Intriguing interview, SilentLambs! Thanks for sharing!
I'm so happy to read this new light from Brother Klar:
If I were saying today that I do no longer want to be a Witness, that I want to leave the Kingdom Hall, nothing would happen to me. My brothers would speak to me, they would visit me and ask why I do no longer want to be a Witness ...
Of course, this only applies if you leave quietly:
If I were actively working against the denomination and not keeping critical thoughts for myself but were making statements in the public, then this would have a different dimension.
I wonder how those who left Catholic and Protestant churches would have felt if they had been shunned by their families and friends for voicing the critical statements about these churches published in the
Watchtower and
Awake!? When my parents and relatives were studying, they were greatly impressed by the encouragement to research and ask questions of priests and clergymen. They believed the truth would speak for itself. It appears that the voice of "truth" is not as able to withstand criticism and questioning as it once was.
While Professor Besier, a theologian at the Heidelberg University, calls for tolerance, Jehovah's Witnesses demean the efforts of the Catholic Church to repent, confess, and reform. I don't think the Society realizes how they have painted themselves into a corner with comments such as these:
The fact is, though, that until quite recently, admission of guilt by religions was the exception rather than the rule. In 1832, in response to some who were urging the Catholic Church to 'regenerate itself,' Gregory XVI said: "It is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain 'restoration and regeneration' for [the church's] safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect." What of defects that were too blatant to be denied? Various strategies were adopted to explain them away. For example, some theologians have maintained that the church is both holy and sinful. The institution itself is said to be holy-preserved from error by God. Still, its members are sinful. Thus, when atrocities are committed in the name of the church, the institution itself should not be held responsible, but individuals within the church should be. Does that sound logical?. . . In a similar vein, historian Alberto Melloni, when commenting on the church's requests for forgiveness, writes: "In reality, what is sometimes asked for is a reprieve from accusations of responsibility." Yes, the Catholic Church seems to be trying to shrug off the burden of past sins in order to regain its credibility in the court of public opinion. In all honesty, though, it must be said that it seems more concerned with making peace with the world than with God.
Such behavior reminds us of Saul, the first king of Israel. (1 Samuel 15:1-12) He committed a grievous error, and when this was exposed, he first tried to justify himself-explain away his error-to Samuel, a faithful prophet of God. (1 Samuel 15:13-21) Finally, the king had to acknowledge to Samuel: "I have sinned; for I have overstepped the order of Jehovah." (1 Samuel 15:24, 25) Yes, he admitted his fault. But his next words to Samuel reveal what was uppermost on his mind: "I have sinned. Now honor me, please, in front of the older men of my people and in front of Israel." (1 Samuel 15:30) Evidently, Saul was more concerned with his standing in Israel than with being reconciled with God. This attitude did not result in God's forgiveness of Saul. Do you think a similar attitude will result in God's forgiveness of the churches?
[bolding mine]
w98 3/1 "Why Are They Asking Forgiveness?" p 5
Will the Society be more concerned with its public standing than being reconciled with God? It will be interesting to see.
Ginny