|
The Recurring Pattern
— 1 Corinthians 4:7, New English Bible.
THE FOUNDER and first editor of the Watch Tower magazine, Charles Taze Russell, was not unaware of the history of the deviation of the early Christian congregation from an original simple brotherhood into an institutionalized religion with a centralized authority structure. Supporters of his magazine then were not known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses” but simply as “Bible Students.” Congregations (then called “Ecclesias”) were autonomous and the congregation where Russell presided, first in Pittsburgh and later in Brooklyn, was viewed simply as a model that could be followed or not according to choice.1 Very early in its publication, in fact just two years after the first issue, the Watch Tower presented a view of the Christian congregation as established by Jesus Christ. Under the title “The Ekklesia” (Greek for “congregation”) an 1881 article showed that Russell was not “fearful” of using the term “organization.” At one point he says of the first Christians that “they were organized and bound together as members of one society, and as such had laws and government, and consequently a head or recognized ruling authority.” This might sound much like the concept of organization advocated by the Watch Tower organization today. What he actually says, however, is very different.
파수대 잡지의 창시자 겸 제1 편집자인 찰스 태이즈 러셀은 초기 그리스도인들이 원래의 단순한 형제애에서 중앙집권적 권위 구조를 가진 제도화된 종교로 편향된 역사를 알지 못했다. 당시 그의 잡지의 지지자들은 "여호와의 증인"이 아니라 단순히 "성서 연구생"으로 알려져 있었다. 회중(당시 "에클레시아스"라고 불림)은 자율적이었고, 러셀이 처음 피츠버그와 후에 브루클린에서 사회한 회합은 단순히 선택에 따라 할 수도 있고 따르지 않을 수도 있는 유형으로 여겨졌다.1 출판 초기, 사실 첫 호가 나온 지 2년 만에, 파수대는 예수 그리스도께서 설립하신 그리스도인 회중에 대한 견해를 제시했다. 1881년 기사에서 "에클레시아"(그리스어로 "회중"이라 칭함)라는 제목 아래, 러셀이 "조직"이라는 용어를 사용하는 것을 "두려워" 하지 않는다는 것을 보여주었다. 어느 순간 그는 최초의 그리스도인에 대해 "그들은 한 사회의 구성원으로서 조직되고 결속되었으며, 그와 같이 법과 정부가 있었고, 결과적으로 우두머리나 공인된 통치권한이 있었다"고 말한다. 이것은 오늘날 워치타워 조직이 옹호하는 조직의 개념과 많이 유사하게 들릴 수도 있다. 그러나 그가 실제로 하는 말은 매우 다르다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 See Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, pages 23-25.
1 신성한 목적에서 여호와의 증인을 보라 23-25페이지.
The Recurring Pattern 1 See Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, pages 23-25. 69 E Chap 4 69 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 70 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM He nowhere indicates that Christians should be under the direction and control of an earthly centralized administration or authority, one with claims on their submission. The bonds uniting its members were not organizational ties. Their unity was not based on a form of organizational loyalty and submission. The law governing them did not include organizational rulings. It was an organization that kept no earthly lists of names. The absence of the concept of an earthly authority structure is apparent throughout. This is what the Watch Tower president said in 1881: E Chap 4 70 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 71 According to that Watch Tower, Christ’s true congregation differed from all existing religious organizations, each with its distinctive set of teachings that all must adopt in order to be recognized members; each with its leaders who meet in conference to establish laws peculiar to their particular organization and who enforce these rulings upon all adherents, so that they thereby “take the place of the true head of the church—Jesus, and the true teacher and guide into all truth, the Holy Spirit.” The publishers of the Watch Tower declared their return to the “primitive simplicity” of the first century congregation, whose organization was of the Spirit, whose law was love, whose only government was the will of him who said, “If you love me keep my commandments.” They were bound, said the Watch Tower, not by organizational ties and standards of human origin, but “by love and common interest.” The next year, in April of 1882, they again affirmed that they had no creedal “fence” within the bounds of which members were obliged to stay, and which excluded from fellowship any who did not subscribe to a prescribed set of teachings. Having at that time no distinctive name, and simply referring to themselves as “Bible students,” here is what they then preached: E Chap 4 71 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 72 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM It did not take long, however, for human reasoning to suggest something more “practical.” The question was raised if it would not be good to have an “earnest, aggressive organization” (built, of course, “upon Scriptural lines”!) to accomplish more effectively the preaching of the good news? The Watch Tower in March, 1883, presents the question and the answer: E Chap 4 72 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 73 The view that a strong visible organization was desirable was thus portrayed as the product of fleshly thinking, typical of the “natural man” who seeks numerical growth, who admires the power that a visible organization with its own distinctive name can generate. It was thus typical also of the unspiritual man who “cannot understand how a company of people, with no organization which they can see, is ever going to accomplish anything.” The only organization they belonged to, these Bible students again affirmed, was a spiritual one, “invisible to the world.” There was nothing to “go and see” to impress people with any organizational bigness and efficiency and strength and ownership of property and buildings. In place of organizational unity, unity of spirit was the proclaimed goal. They were encouraging people to free themselves from denominational religions with their visible organizations. So how, they asked, could they call on others to do this if they did not do it themselves? E Chap 4 73 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 74 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM It was, therefore, misleading for the Watchtower magazine of March 1, 1979, under the heading “Modern Day Theocratic Organization,” to quote from a February, 1884, issue of the Watch Tower as though the quotation supported the existing view of organization prevailing among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Notice how the material (page 16) prefaces its quotation so as to allow for this idea: In an attempt to explain away beforehand the statement “We belong to NO earthly organization,” the writer of the March 1, 1979, Watchtower presents this as if it referred only to separateness from “sectarian organizations of Christendom, as well as from political organizations.” They were separate from these—though the thought of “political organizations” does not even come into E Chap 4 74 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 75 the discussion; its insertion by the later Watchtower writer is simply the drawing of a “red herring” over the trail, diverting attention from the actual significance of the statements. In the blunt statement, “We belong to NO earthly organization,” the “NO” plainly means none, not just none of the sectarian ones but none that they themselves had set up. They clearly taught that to set up such an organization themselves, with its own authority structure and its own distinctive name, would be to create yet another sectarian system. The only organization they belonged to was the “heavenly organization” whose members’ names are written in heaven. This is made evident by the context. In the following paragraphs, not quoted by the 1979 writer, the 1884 article contained these points: This makes quite clear that Russell and his associates did not then present an exclusivistic viewpoint, as if considering themselves the only Christians. They rejected the narrow viewpoint that would deny the Christianity of other religious persons because of their not coming within some organizational “fence.” Any who believed in the foundation truth “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” would not be denied the name “Christian” by them. E Chap 4 75 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 76 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM That this is the meaning of their statements is obvious from earlier issues of the magazines, several of which have already been quoted. An openness to others beside themselves as fellow “Christians” is expressed, for they had said “We are in fellowship with all Christians in whom we can recognize the Spirit of Christ, and especially with those who recognize the Bible as the only standard. We do not require, therefore, that all shall see just as we do in order to be called Christians; realizing that growth in both grace and knowledge is a gradual process.”2 The 1979 Watchtower writer who looked up the 1884 quotation reasonably should have seen these other statements. If so, he would have known that the use he made of the quotation was misleading, contrary to fact. That this attitude continued is seen a decade later, when the September 15, 1895, issue the Watch Tower stated in quite blunt terms the attitude toward human organization. Responding to inquiries from those wanting advice as to the most profitable way to conduct group meetings, it presented this as one of its initial points: 2 The Watch Tower, April 1882, quoted on pages 71, 72. 3 When the book The New Creation was published in 1909 the viewpoint of organization remained as has been presented. It said, for example: “The test of membership in the New Creation will not be membership in any earthly organization, but union with the Lord as a member of his mystical body; as saith the Apostle, `If any man be in Christ, he is a New Creature . . .’” These were the early statements, the early positions.3 How then did such a remarkable metamorphosis take place, producing an almost complete reversal of position, one that prevails to this day? In the 1980s, Ron Frye, a former circuit overseer and a Witness for 33 years, having spent “years of agonizing” over the Watch Tower’s teaching as to its authority, did intensive research into its validity. Contrasting the past and the present, he wrote: Today, more than a hundred years from Russell’s start, the Witnesses are outstandingly organization-minded. The organization always comes first. In the Watchtower of March 1, 1979, the article “Faith in Jehovah’s Victorious Organization” the expression “theocratic organization” appears fifteen times in just the first E Chap 4 76 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 77 eleven paragraphs.4 This kind of mesmerizing repetition is constantly used by the Society to condition Jehovah’s Witnesses to think that it is wrong for them to question anything the Society ever published as truth. In contradiction to this attitude toward the organization, Russell and his early associates were actually antiearthly organization. As to what may have motivated such an “anti-earthly organization” attitude at that initial stage, Frye continues: Now the antagonism which Russell had toward churches with a history is understandable. He was, after all, a religious maverick. His small group of followers were without an organizational history. They sought to minimize the absence of that lack of history by arguing that God did not have an on-going earthly organization—a monolithic, Christian congregation —that it was not God’s way of doing it. In this way Russell’s adherents could bring down in their own eyes those religions that did have an earthly history and could explain away their own lack of one. And, in connection with the subject at hand, it is abundantly clear that Russell did not believe that God had on earth at that time an ‘1800-year-old faithful and discreet slave organization’— God’s earthly channel of communication. He did not find it nor did it find him. He and his associates had no fellowship with any existing organization and were in fact disdainful of all other association. They stoutly repudiated the idea that there was on earth a visible, earthly organization existing from Pentecost onward that one would have to identify with in order to serve God. But today, a hundred years later, the descendants of the Bible Students of Russell’s movement argue the other way around, that it is necessary to be looking to a visible, earthly organization, namely, [that associated with] the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. That was not the position in the beginning. As the situation changed, so Jehovah’s Witnesses changed their arguments. They argued just as strongly one way against organization at one time as they now argue strongly for organization. Just as their perception of earthly organization was far different a hundred years ago from what it is today, so their view of Russell is far different today from what it was in the beginning. Apart from brief references to him from time to time, Russell for the most part is unknown to modern day Witnesses. His writings are not recommended reading nor are his many books any longer published by the very publishing house he established and endowed with his own money. 4 The term “Theocratic organization” has been used since the December 1, 1939 Watchtower in particular. E Chap 4 77 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 78 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM Yet here was a man whom, Jehovah’s Witnesses still argue, God used to revive the great teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Why don’t they study his books today in the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even from a historical standpoint? Because much of it, if not most of it, would be considered heresy today. That there is a basis for such an assessment can be seen in what did happen while Russell was yet alive. If one looks back over the various quotations earlier presented in this chapter, it may seem difficult to believe that the man who was the source of them all was the same man who in 1910—when he had become recognized by thousands of persons internationally as their “Pastor,” when the Watch Tower magazine he had founded had attained a history of three decades, and when his writings were circulating by the thousands of copies in many nations—now said that the person who read the Bible alone without using the Scripture Studies he had written would, according to experience, ‘go into darkness within two years,’ whereas the one reading his Scripture Studies without reading any of the Bible itself would still be “in the light” at the end of that time. Though a man might spend “weeks and years” in personal Bible study without the use of Russell’s writings, “the chances even then are that when he does light on something he will have it all wrong.”5 There were qualifying remarks made in connection with these claims. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the ability of the individual Christian to understand God’s Word by personal study was deprecated and the whole thrust was to represent the Watch Tower publications as God’s exclusive channel for light and truth. It is difficult to conceive of a more immodest, sectarian attitude, to conceive of a sadder departure from the lofty principles earlier advocated. Nor was the attitude a onetime, momentary expression. That it had been developing is evident from material published in the Watch Tower the year previous, 1909. In its October 1 issue, Russell, the founder and editor of the magazine, the sole “Pastor” recognized by the Bible Students, discussed Matthew chapter twenty four, verse 45, and its reference to “that servant” and his “fellow servants.” Using, as he commonly did, the editorial “we” in place of “I,” he acknowledged that fourteen years earlier the term “that servant” (referring to the faithful and wise servant of the parable) had been applied to him by another Watch Tower affiliate (actually his wife, according to the July 15, 1906 issue of Zion’s 5 See the copy of this material in Chapter 2, page 31. E Chap 4 78 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 79 Watch Tower) and that he had not entered into the discussion that developed over this application. But he states that the person who had first applied this designation to him now asserted that “while we did occupy such position we have forfeited it, lost it to a successor.” He then presents a discussion of the issue but does it indirectly by the method of presenting first what his “friends” say and then what his “opponents” say, limiting his own direct comments to the close. He presents his “friends” as saying: 6 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, page 356. It must be remembered that the Watch Tower was Russell’s own magazine. He started it, he controlled it, he determined what went into it as its sole editor.6 It was essentially a vehicle for his writings. Previous to his death, in a “last will and testament” he stated that, while he had donated the magazine to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (a corporation which he also controlled as by far E Chap 4 79 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 80 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM the dominant shareholder), this was done “with the explicit understanding that I should have full control of all the interests of these publications during my life time, and that after my decease they should be conducted according to my wishes.”7 So, when he speaks of attitudes toward the magazine or the Society, or applies the term “channel” to the Society or the magazine, he is actually referring these things to himself in the most personal sense. The entire context of the article confirms this. That he was the only one recognized as “Pastor” adds force to this application. He had earlier referred to himself as “God’s mouthpiece” and “agent” for revealing truth.8 So, when he speaks of the “one channel” through which persons (his “friends”) had received their enlightenment, he clearly means the writings of Charles Taze Russell. He shows this also by saying that “it would be the privilege of others of the Lord’s faithful ones to be ‘fellow servants’ (co-laborers)” with this “one special channel” chosen by the Lord.9 That this is so is clearly evident from statement after statement appearing in the Watch Tower magazine in the years following Russell’s death. Giving a totally different picture from the very slanted version modern Watchtower material presents, the March 1, 1923, Watch Tower quotes Russell as saying that some spoke of him as the “faithful and wise servant” and others spoke of the Society as such. The magazine then adds: Both statements were true; for Brother Russell was in fact the Society in the most absolute sense, in this, that he directed the policy and course of the Society without regard to any other person on earth. In fact, a biographical issue of the Watch Tower published after his death on October 16, 1916, stated: Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russel’s writings believe that he filled the office of “that faithful and wise servant,” and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation.10 7 This will and testament is presented in full in the “Appendix” of Crisis of Conscience, pages 356, 357; his total control of the Watch Tower Society is documented on pages 53, 54, of that publication. 8 The Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, page 229; see Crisis of Conscience, pages 53, 54, for photocopy. 9 It is worthy of note that when the December 15, 1981, Watchtower (page 25) quoted this article it left out entirely the reference to other Watch Tower associates being “fellow servants” along with “that servant” who is the “one channel.” This allowed the magazine to give the false impression that the “faithful slave” was understood as applying to the Watch Tower magazine rather than to Charles Taze Russell. This type of editing can only be termed journalistic dishonesty. 10 The Watch Tower; December 1, 1916, page 356. See also Crisis of Conscience, pages 53-57, for photocopied documentation of the Society’s insistence during the 1920s that Russell was the “faithful and wise servant.” E Chap 4 80 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 81 Of those classed as “opponents” to his being “that servant” used as God’s “channel,” in the October 1, 1909 Watch Tower referred to, Russell represents them as saying: Note that those he calls “opponents” then took the same position that the Watch Tower Society today upholds, namely, that “the faithful and wise servant” should be understood to mean “all the members of the church of Christ,” not one man. To view Russell as “that servant” and call all others his “fellow servants” was therefore “meaningless,” since they were all part of “that servant.” They saw a clear danger in looking to any human source as the sole channel through which to receive truth and understanding. In Russell’s eyes, to question in such way the special relationship with the Lord which his holding the position of “that servant” and of being the chosen “channel” implied, was being “antagonistic” and making “bitter and sarcastic” expressions. All of this has a very familiar ring. Twenty-three years earlier, in 1886, in his book The Divine Plan of the Ages (page 23), Russell had said that the development of a E Chap 4 81 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 82 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM Now, however, when some were expressing less than total support for his writings as constituting “the one special channel” chosen by the Lord, he endeavored to attribute great, even vital, importance to those writings. He thus represents his “friends” as saying of his publications: heirarchical organization has its roots in “an undue respect for the teachings of fallible men.” 11 Three months later, in the December 15, Watch Tower, page 371, he warned the magazine’s readers that a test was on and that the “wily adversary” was attempting to “prejudice them against the very instrumentalities God provided to keep the `feet’ [the final body members] of Christ in this evil day.” This was being done through certain class leaders who were attempting to supplant the Watch Tower publications with the Bible and Russell states that in so doing they were endeavoring “to come between the people of God and the divinely provided light upon God’s Word.” E Chap 4 82 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 83 Note that the “friends” are presented as saying that all the Bible study they and their forefathers had engaged in had been completely ineffectual until the Watch Tower publications came along. Evidently God’s holy Spirit was either inactive or simply ineffective in providing them and their forefathers the help they needed. Whatever prayers they had made to God for understanding during those “generations” apparently simply went unanswered, because His time had not yet arrived to produce His “channel.”12 Note as well that after this statement of the crucial role of that Society, Russell presents his “friends” as saying that “to ignore this leading of the Lord and to exclude from their study of the Bible the teacher sent of the Lord would be to dishonor the Lord who sent the same and to reject His helping hand,” all this leading to “gradual loss of light,” loss of holy Spirit and ultimate entry into “outer darkness.” All this from the pen of the man who had earlier said that it was “the undue respect for the teachings of fallible men” that led to a hierarchy and to enslavement. In the latter part of the article Russell abandons the “friends versus opponents” literary device and expresses himself directly. Commendably, he urges an avoidance of quarreling or name-calling. He urges the importance of “meekness” and “humility.” At the same time, in the article he himself portrays those who believe it unscriptural to view him and his magazine as God’s unique channel as “disloyal ‘fellow servants,’” “crafty,” having a “contentious spirit,” that they seem “inoculated with madness, Satanic hydrophobia.” Any who do not continue in affiliation with his Watch Tower Society are described as ‘sifted-out ones.’ While saying that one should not be unkind to persons who have gone “blind,” he goes on to speak of these dissenters as persons “who in this hour of temptation are being smitten down by the arrows of the adversary because, from the Lord’s standpoint, they are not deemed worthy of the necessary succor.” Clearly, in his mind, to qualify as among those showing ‘meekness, humility and teachableness’ required a humble recognition that Christ had chosen just one special “servant,” “one special channel,” and a meek receptiveness to the writings of that “servant” as unquestionably superior to all other sources of knowledge on God’s Word. In reading the article I could not but wonder at the incredibly warped reasoning that can develop in the human mind no matter how religiously oriented it may be. How can an individual write such extreme praise of himself and 12 Compare John 14:26; 1 John 2:27; 5:20. E Chap 4 83 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 84 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM his writings, attach such enormous, crucial, vital importance to those writings, argue for his being a special, one-of-a-kind, neverbefore-seen, never-to-be-repeated agent of God and then impute a lack of meekness and humility and teachableness to those who doubt this? I view it as a form of mental illness, an infection from the germs of self-centeredness that breed wherever an atmosphere of personal importance and power develops. None of us have a natural immunity to it. Our protection comes from a clear and constant recognition of the headship reserved solely to Christ, from remembering that, if we have a personal relationship with God, so does every other person who shares a common faith, and from a deep respect for the fact that before God we all stand as equals. Compare all the foregoing history and expressions with the statements of Ignatius, Cyprian and other leaders of the early centuries in their push for greater adherence and loyalty to the bishop as the God-selected religious teacher, their equation of any lack of submission or receptiveness with a ‘dishonoring of the Lord,’ and their warnings of dire consequences to any who questioned the privileged position that being so chosen by the Lord implied. In the words of Lightfoot, the bishop then became “the indispensable channel of divine grace.” In the case at hand, we have a man presenting himself as the “one special channel” of God for receiving understanding of God’s message and direction. The parallel is evident. The centuries-old pattern of elevating human importance and, by implication, human authority, was surfacing once again. It soon received fresh and powerful impetus. The Centralizing Process Intensifies With Russell’s death in 1916, a period of uncertainty ensued. By then the wholesale collapse of his intricately developed timeprophecies system (which had its starting point in 1874 and its ending date in 1914) threw matters into disarray and produced a fallout of much questioning.13 Russell’s successor, Joseph F. Rutherford, had to deal with this. Any devotion Rutherford felt for the high principles that early issues of the Watch Tower had enunciated was now put to the test. The book Crisis of Conscience has already documented the means he chose to employ to bring order to the ranks. Those means included his strident, dogmatic defense of the Watch Tower 13 See Crisis of Conscience, pages 204 to 233. E Chap 4 84 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 85 Society’s traditional teachings, the intimidating insinuations leveled at any who questioned the absolute rightness of the time prophecies of the past and the new ones being developed, the profusion of such expressions as “indisputable,” “of proven certainty,” “correct beyond the possibility of doubt,” “of divine origin and divinely corroborated,” “too sublime to be the result of chance or of human invention,” statements applied to chronology calculations that are now completely discarded.14 As the large number of persons ceasing their affiliation during the first half of the 1920s demonstrates, the success of these methods was limited. Rutherford added to the turbulence of the period due to his clear concern and determination that, as president of the Watch Tower Society, he should exercise the same degree of authority that Russell had held. The difference was that he was not the Society’s founder or the overwhelming majority shareholder, as Russell had been. A power struggle resulted within the board of directors. Through dismissal of four board members not in accord with his desire for full control and, later, the dissolution of the editorial board Russell had provided for, Rutherford broke any resistance and thereafter exercised monarchical authority in the Society headquarters. While this now gave him complete control over the Society and what it published, his authority did not extend beyond that domain. During Charles Taze Russell’s presidency the corporation, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society, was viewed simply as an instrument for the publishing of the message. It and its officers exercised no administrative authority over the congregations or “ecclesias” that developed. Any control that existed was primarily and essentially suasive. Now, however, persuasive approaches were deemed too weak to deal with the circumstances existing. Coercive methods steadily replaced them. Duplicating what took place in the early centuries, centralization of authority and control was resorted to as the means to maintain, actually to impose, unity. In 1919, as the book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose relates, just two years after Judge Rutherford had assumed the presidency, congregations were asked to “register as a service organization with the Society,” with the understanding that then the Brooklyn headquarters would appoint a brother in the congregation to serve as the Society’s appointee, called a “director.” The book mentioned adds (on page 95): 14 See Crisis of Conscience, pages 223 through 233. E Chap 4 85 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 86 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM This meant that for the first time authority was being taken away from the democratically controlled congregations under their “elective elders,” and direction was to reside now, specifically, under the Society’s international supervision. True, it was limited, but the visible theocratic organization got started with this arrangement. The thin edge of the wedge had been inserted. Very early on, therefore, Rutherford began to move away from the Watch Tower’s position of previous years. He began to work toward the very thing that Russell had decried as the product of “fleshly thinking”: the development of a ‘visible, aggressive, tight-knit, centralized organization.’ The year after the first step (just described) was taken, another followed. The Society’s own history relates: The tightening up of preaching responsibility began in 1920 when everyone in the congregation who participated in the witness work was required to turn in a weekly report.15 In this way, an implied duty of submission to the control of the Brooklyn headquarters was now implanted in the minds of all associated. One normally reports to a superior, or at least to someone toward whom one has some obligation. In the first century the good news was proclaimed throughout the Roman world and was accepted by thousands of persons. The apostle Paul, who carried the good news to many nations nowhere attributed the spread of the message to human organization. To the contrary he acknowledged that it is ‘neither he that plants nor he that waters, but God who by his power gives the growth.’16 In somewhat similar vein, the Watch Tower’s first president, Russell, had said that it was fleshly thinking to believe that a visible human organization was essential “to accomplish anything.” By contrast, the focus on organization during Rutherford’s presidency became almost an obsession. In 1922, the December 15 Watch Tower, page 389 said: The efficiency with which the witness must be given of necessity depends largely upon the organized efforts made in the field. This is echoed six decades later in the June 1, 1986, Watchtower (page 25) which says of the work done by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1985: This work could never be done without an organization. . . . They could do it only because they were efficiently organized into 15 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, page 96. 16 1 Corinthians 3:5-7. E Chap 4 86 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 87 nearly 50,000 congregations, all under the visible direction of their one Governing Body.[underlining mine] The power of God’s holy Spirit seems largely forgotten, replaced by the ‘efficient organizing’ (and the men directing it), without which success would be impossible. Evidently first-century Christians failed to realize the ‘impossibility’ of bearing witness throughout the Roman Empire without such organizational arrangements. In none of the accounts contained in Scripture is organizational efficiency ever credited with any role in the spread of the message and its acceptance by thousands. As discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 of this book, the remarkable factor in all the account is the amazing degree of spontaneity evident, the informality manifest, the absence of any type of highly programmed, intensively supervised activity. Theocracy—Rule by God from the Top Down During the decade that followed, Rutherford continued to strengthen the position of the Society (and, obviously, of himself as the president thereof). In 1931 he personally selected the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” for the organization. In 1932 he eliminated the bodies of elders (then elected by the congregations), stating that the arrangement was “not according to the principles of the great Theocrat, who rules his sanctuary from the top down.” Now the congregations nominated a Service Director to be “confirmed by the Society’s executive or manager.”17 Then in 1938 all congregations worldwide were invited to adopt an agreement authorizing the Brooklyn headquarters to appoint any and all persons serving in responsible positions in the congregations. With this, everything was now acclaimed to be fully “Theocratic,” “God-ruled.” The centralization of authority had been accomplished. God now ruled, “from the top down”—and, on the way down, everything came through the Brooklyn headquarters. What early religious leaders of the past had taken over two centuries to achieve, the Watch Tower organization accomplished in a mere half century. As in the early centuries of Christianity, a measure of disturbed conditions and a resultant stress on the need for “unity” and “order” provided the justification for such intense centralizing of authority and the subordination of the individual to it. Repeatedly, all were urged to submit to “Theocratic order,” which in actuality meant to accept what came from the headquarters as if it came from God. The 17 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Devine Purpose, page 127. E Chap 4 87 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 88 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM decision by the Watch Tower president to eliminate elder bodies and his establishment of “Theocratic rule” were later portrayed as the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy of the‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ after 2,300 days, and the new interpretations and teachings the organization developed were said to be the “flashes of lightning” proceeding from God’s temple as described in the book of Revelation.18 Called “the sanctuary class,” they clearly presented themselves as if ‘seated in God’s temple.’ In view of all these factors, it seems evident that the “man of lawlessness” characteristics were surfacing in this relatively new religious organization as they had in other religions, large and small. An Essential for Life Early Watch Tower issues had acknowledged that the supporters of that magazine were not the only Christians on earth, that they were not penned up in some human organization with its defined boundaries. Human salvation was not dependent on organizational membership but on faith. By contrast, the latter years of Rutherford’s presidency saw ever greater stress placed on the visible “organization” and its importance. The whole world was divided into two camps under two major, comprehensive organizations. The book Enemies, published in 1937 (the first book I personally studied) states (page 72): It was not so much the view itself but the application of that view that exercised such a coercive effect on all congregation members. The attitude fostered was that the only way to be under God’s direction was to be submissive to the instructions coming through the visible organization (with headquarters in Brooklyn), for everything outside that organization’s confines was of the organization of Satan. So Jehovah’s Witnesses felt and so I felt. Those outside the organization, whatever their evidence of faith and Christian hope and life, were condemned as resistant to God himself if they did not accept the views advanced by the organization regarding Christ’s “invisible presence” in 1914 and other teachings 18 Daniel 8:14; Revelation 4:5; 11:19; see also Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, page 127; “Your Will Be Done on Earth,” pages 210-217; Light I (1930), pages 104, 227-229. E Chap 4 88 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 89 and claims tied to that date. By failing to accept such views, they were decried as insubordinate to God.”19 In a series of seven Witness conventions from 1922 to 1928 resolutions passed were said to be the divine fulfillment of the ‘seven trumpets’ of Revelation chapters eight and nine. These contained repeated condemnations of the “League of Nations,” “big business,” religious leaders, and similar things. But what might be called the “bottom line” in all of them was the issue of acceptance of the claims tied to the date of 1914.20 Statements in the 1933 booklet Dividing the People (pages 61-63) typify the position taken toward the non-Witness population of earth: 19 Light I, pages 122, 123. 20 Light I, pages 108, 111, 118, 122-125, 139, 140; 218, 219; see also Then Is Finished the Mystery of God (1969), pages 209-247. E Chap 4 89 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 90 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM Acceptance of the teachings, (among the most distinctive, those relating to 1914 ) would logically mean acceptance of the organization that speaks for God, the Brooklyn-based Watch Tower organization, and submission to its “Theocratic order.” To appreciate the reality of this, the Witness world view must be kept in mind, namely, that there were only two camps and that all people were divided between two organizations: Satan’s and God’s. There was only one way to escape destruction: separate from Satan’s organization (containing 99.99% of earth’s population), and align oneself with God’s organization (composed then of about 100,000 Witnesses or about 0.006% of the people). That was the only choice, “take it or leave it,” and the warning was: if you leave it, you face death. Although written during the year following Rutherford’s death, an article titled “Righteous Requirements,” published in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower, pages 204-206, illustrates the attitude of total submission to the organization that had been inculcated during his presidency. It shows, too, how an organization can plainly and unabashedly ask people to equate what it says with what God himself has said. Consider these quotations: E Chap 4 90 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 91 E Chap 4 91 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 92 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM E Chap 4 92 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 93 I was only 21 years old when that material appeared. Even so, reviewing this material now, I ask myself how it is possible that I and the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses could possibly read such blatantly arrogant assertions and not feel repelled or at least be caused to think seriously about the attitude developed in us. At least one person did. The bound volume I presently have of the 1943 issues of the Watchtower once belonged Percy Harding, who had begun to associate with the organization back in 1910 and continued that association for seventy years up until 1981(see his account in Chapter 11). When looking up the article above quoted, I found a small slip of paper he had inserted in the article. It is here reproduced: The whole spirit of this 1943 Watchtower article reflects the identical viewpoint expressed centuries ago in the Clementine Homilies, quoted earlier, in the statement that “whoever disobeys your orders disobeys Christ, and whoever disobeys Christ offends God.” That is why the earlier-mentioned Watchtower article (referred to in Chapter 2), written in 1946, four years after Judge Rutherford’s death, and entitled “Let God Prove to Be True,” was E Chap 4 93 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 94 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM so refreshing. It represented a radical change from the almost armylike, regimented thinking and action I had been used to during the years of Rutherford’s presidency. Since the statements made in that 1946 Watchtower article and those made by Watch Tower officials in the Scotland case in 1954 are at positive odds with one another, which represents the true position of the organization today? Regrettably, the evidence shows that the refreshingly moderate position taken by the 1946 Watchtower as regards the Bible and the right and responsibility of each individual to read it and through such study to come to a personal conviction regarding its teachings, without dictation from some organization acting as a “teaching power” or “teaching office,” soon began to be qualified. Not only qualified, but eventually rejected, argued against in completely opposite terms. Why? I believe that after Judge Rutherford’s death there was an initial desire—on the part of both Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz—to move away from the strident dogmatism found in Rutherford’s writings. No particular internal crisis situation existed when the new presidency of Nathan Knorr began, no major questioning or threat of defection such as Rutherford faced and which even the Society’s publications indicate he met with hard-handed, sharptongued response. Governing Body member Lyman Swingle, in discussing one day the change effected by the reorganization of the Governing Body in 1975-76, said to me, “If you think that made big changes, you should have been here after Rutherford died and Knorr took over.” Knorr’s presidency marked a notable improvement over the virtual tyranny of Rutherford’s control. Whatever the initial feelings of Knorr and Franz, however, as time passed, the age-old pattern began to assert itself once more. The trend toward strong emphasis on centralized organizational authority became more and more pronounced. The existing authority structure was, in fact, the one that had been built up during Rutherford’s presidency. It was a legacy from him. For that legacy to stay intact and in force it had to be argued for, the centralized authority had to be stressed, or else it might lose its control over the individual members, their thinking, their decision-forming abilities, their use of their time, their conscience. It may be noted that the 1954 Scotland trial, the “Walsh case,” was over the issue of whether Douglas Walsh, the presiding overseer of a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, qualified for classification as an ordained minister under British selective service E Chap 4 94 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 95 regulations. To achieve the goal of obtaining such a classification, the Watch Tower officials did just the opposite of what had been claimed in Watch Tower magazines of earlier times. Those magazines had claimed that Jehovah’s Witnesses were very different from the established religions of Christendom which had their authority structures and their official creeds. Now the Watch Tower officials tried to demonstrate that Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion were essentially very similar, that they in effect had a creed to which all must adhere, and that therefore whatever classification the clergy of the established churches qualified for, the presiding overseers of Jehovah’s Witness qualified for as well. That appears to be a major reason why the Watch Tower spokesmen, Franz, Covington and Suiter, were so positive, even adamant, that the obligation rested on all members of the organization to accept and conform to ALL teachings of the organization, on pain of expulsion for disobedience—even though these persons might rightly believe that some of the teachings were contrary to Scripture. For the legal benefits sought, it seems that they needed—or believed that they needed—to establish that type of creedal authority over members in order for Walsh to be classified as an “ordained” minister of a recognized, bona fide, established religion. 21 As may be recalled, when asked, with regard to the Watch Tower Society’s authoritative statements of doctrine, “Is their acceptance a matter of choice, or is it obligatory on all those who wish to be and remain members of the Society?” the answer given by Fred Franz was, “It is obligatory.” When asked, with regard to the erroneous teaching about 1874, whether “it became the bounden duty of the Witnesses to accept this miscalculation,” the vice president responded, “Yes.” When the statement was put to him, “A Witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed instructions issued in the “Watchtower” or the “Informant” [now Our Kingdom Ministry] or “Awake”?” his reply was, “He must accept these.” When asked whether, separate from the information contained in the corporation’s publications, a man would be able to interpret the Scriptures truly, he answered, “No.” When Hayden Covington was asked whether unity was sought even though “based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?” he said, “That is conceded to be true.” When asked whether one’s refusal to accept such would lead to disfellowshiping and thereby place such a one in a position “worthy of death,” he replied, “I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.” 21 The court decision did accord the Witness religion recognition as an “established” religion, but it ruled against granting Walsh recognition as an “ordained minister.” E Chap 4 95 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 96 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM Likewise, Grant Suiter, when asked whether a person can have a right understanding of the Scriptures apart from the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he answered, “No.” With regard to the erroneous teachings about 1874 and 1925, when asked if “acceptance and absolute acceptance [of these teachings] as Truth was imposed upon all Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time,” he said, “That is right.” In reality, much of this misrepresented the facts. Neither in Russell’s time nor even during Rutherford’s time (during whose presidencies the specific false predictions mentioned had been taught), had there been the practice of disfellowshiping persons who conscientiously objected to certain teachings. In Russell’s time there were subtle criticisms or insinuations of a lack of faith for those expressing doubt or disagreement; in Rutherford’s time such ones might come in for demotion of position, even verbal castigation, but actual excommunication used as a coercive instrument to enforce uniformity was rare. The three Society representatives evidently felt it justifiable, however, to say what they did in order to attain the end they were seeking. They colored the past to make it fit the organizational position that was by now in effect, where acceptance of the organization’s teachings had become compulsory if one would avoid ejection.22 One might wish to think that their expressions were couched in such absolute, unbending, terms only due to the circumstances, under the temporary pressure of the trial questioning, and that therefore they did not represent the true viewpoint and practice of the organization, particularly the stand so eloquently presented in 1946. It would be good to take such a charitable view, if only the evidence allowed for it. It does not, however. Consider what subsequent issues of the magazine had to say. 22 A similar use of tactical maneuvering is seen in a more recent court case, taking place in Bonham, Texas, in 1986. Elders who were trustees of the Kingdom Hall there were arbitrarily replaced by the Watch Tower Society and a court case resulted as to who had rightful control over the hall. The law recognized only two types of ecclesiastical control, hierarchical or congregational. The Watch Tower Society’s publications had adamantly stated that its direction was “not hierarchical.” (See, for example, the book Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (1966), page 169; Qualified to Be Ministers (1955), pages 289, 290.) However, in order to establish its control over this Bonham Kingdom Hall, the Society’s attorneys were authorized to present its control as “hierarchical” rather than “congregational.” Don Adams, then a vice president of the Society’s New York corporation, submitted an affidavit to this effect, stating in point 6: “To implement their decisions, the Governing Body uses a hierarchical organization together with corporate entities.” (See the Appendix.) He then outlines evidence of the hierarchical nature of the arrangement prevailing, with the Brooklyn headquarters at the top of the authority structure, followed by branch committees, zone overseers, district overseers, circuit overseers, bodies of elders, and ministerial servants. In this case the declaration of a hierarchical nature was contrary to the organization’s published claims. It was not, however, contrary to the facts, for the hierarchical nature of the structure is apparent. E Chap 4 96 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 97 An Age-Old Pattern Prevails to the Present In the 1940’s Jehovah’s Witnesses had been drawn tightly together by persecution—mob violence in some areas, the flag salute issue, totalitarian suppression and persecution in Nazi Germany and other regimented countries—and by the overall tension of World War II. By the 1950’s this had all passed. Witnesses who, as teenagers and pre-teenagers, had been told by Judge Rutherford at the 1941 St. Louis convention that ‘soon the princes of Bible times would be with them,’ and to hold off in marrying until that time, were now well into their mid-twenties.23 The postwar era of growing prosperity and increased tolerance was progressing. The dire conditions that had stimulated excited speculation about Armageddon’s nearness had receded into the background. As with many other religious organizations that explain prophecies as applying to certain modern dates and time periods, the whole history of the Watch Tower organization showed its reliance on unfavorable world conditions as confirmation of its claims. The bad news of the world serves as a means of stimulating the expectations of the membership, filling them with a sense of urgency. The peace period following World War II did not supply this in any way comparable to the dramatic circumstances during the war years. Amid an atmosphere of somewhat waning enthusiasm among Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watchtower now began to deal with a tendency on the part of some to question the rightness of its claims and teachings. Back in 1946, the Watchtower had flatly rejected the idea of a “Mother Church” empowered by God to teach her “children.” The idea of any visible organization charged with being a “magisterium” or teaching authority to interpret the Bible for its adherents was also rejected. Now, just six years later, the following statements appeared in the February 1, 1952, Watchtower (pages 79, 80): 23 See Crisis of Conscience, pages 13, 14, 196, 197. E Chap 4 97 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 98 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM E Chap 4 98 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 99 For Watchtower readers, the organization is in effect portrayed as above and beyond correction by any source other than God and Christ. For anyone to attempt to point out errors would indicate that they thought themselves “smarter” than the “mother” organization, hence lacking in humility. Incredible as it may seem when considering the long history of speculation, failed predictions, erroneous date setting, and numerous shiftings in interpretations of Scriptures, the article tells its readers that they can receive the “mother” organization’s teachings “much more readily” than the Beroeans could receive what the apostle Paul said—because “we have much past experience with the precious provisions from the slave [the organization]”! In reality, the greater their past experience with the organization’s publications, the greater their reason for exercising extreme caution, as the organization’s error-ridden history plainly shows.24 24 God’s Outlaw, a book by Brian Edwards about Bible translator William Tyndale, on page 7 lists one of Martin Luther’s three major contentions as being that “the papacy was a human governing body, capable of error and itself to be tested by Scripture.” E Chap 4 99 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 100 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM The process of emphasizing human authority and the intensifying of human control by means of centralized authority which Rutherford had so ably developed over three decades, was carried along with even greater ability by his successors. Their language progressed beyond the blunt, even openly dictatorial, expressions typical of his presidency. It employed far more sophisticated, complex argumentation and smoother, more appealing speech. Yet it achieved the same degree of intellectual intimidation and sought to impose the same sort of guilt complex on any who did not promptly line up with whatever teaching or policy or program proceeded from the central headquarters in Brooklyn. The ultimate effect reminds me of what historian Paul Johnson writes in summing up the view of the church held by Cyprian in the third century. In A History of Christianity, pages 59, 60 he states: [Cyprian] reasoned as follows. The Church was a divine institution; the Bride of Christ; Mother Church, the mediatrix of all salvation. It was one, undivided and catholic [universal]. Only in association with her could Catholics have life. Outside her holy fellowship there was nothing but error and darkness. The sacraments, episcopal ordination, the confession of faith, even the Bible itself, lost their meaning if used outside the true Church. The Church was also a human, visible community, found only in organized form. The individual could not be saved by direct contact with God. The carefully graded hierarchy, without which the organized Church could not exist, was established by Christ and the apostles. . . . the only unambiguous instruction [the Scriptures] contained being to remain faithful to the Church and obey its rules. With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church; it was retained only by the bishops [overseers], through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of church members. Re-read this, replacing the word “church” with “organization.” Then ask if this does not describe accurately the view inculcated among Jehovah’s Witnesses through constant repetition as shown by the following evidence. Honoring the Mother Organization In the May 1, 1957, issue of the Watchtower (page 274) the statement is made that the “real mother of Christians” is not an earthly organization but a heavenly one, “God’s invisible universal organization.” However, the spiritual ‘mother’ is said to have a E Chap 4 100 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 101 “visible channel of communication” for all congregation members and that channel is the earthly organization. Which, in plain words, means that when “mother” talks it is through the “visible theocratic organization” and so if one wishes to listen to the “heavenly mother” he or she must do so by listening to the visible organization of the Watch Tower Society. In effect, then, whatever is said of the ‘invisible, spiritual, heavenly mother’ becomes applicable to her supposed earthly channel, without whose direction members cannot understand the Bible. After quoting Proverbs 6:20, 23, the article states: E Chap 4 101 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 102 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM This material is filled with assertions. It presents a picture that is completely foreign to what the Christian Scriptures reveal as regards the real relationship of believers within the Christian congregation. Those Scriptures show that men can help others to grow in knowledge and understanding; but they nowhere present men, or some collective body of men, as essential to such knowledge and understanding. This would be a negation of the teaching of Jesus Christ that he and he alone occupies the position of Teacher in that essential way.25 The Watchtower’s position, rather than being representative of Scripture, reflects the third-century language of Cyprian, who wrote of the “mother Church” in this way: . . . from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated. . . . He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.26 25 Matthew 23:8, NW; TEV. 26 “The Treatises of Cyprian,” Treatise I, paragraphs 5, 6. E Chap 4 102 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 103 Again, replace the word “Church” with the word “organization” and the language, along with the whole thrust of the claim, becomes identical to that found in the Watchtower magazine just quoted. In the minds of members, the published distinction between the ‘heavenly mother’ and her earthly ‘daughter’ becomes irrelevant and becomes a distinction without a difference, for mother’s voice is heard only through the earthly channel. Although it may be said that this is not so, that the ‘heavenly mother’s’ voice is also heard through the Scriptures, members are plainly told that they can only understand those Scriptures through the earthly organization. By virtue of such claims, the visible organization becomes a kind of co-parent with God, the earthly agency by which the Father conveys all his instructions to his children among mankind. One can appreciate the diminishing effect this view can have on the role of Jesus Christ and of holy Spirit in the minds of those accepting these claims, and this is the most serious aspect of the matter. When “mother” speaks with Father’s backing, where does the Son come in and how necessary is his guidance? References to Christ Jesus and to holy Spirit in this Watchtower exposition just quoted are notable only by their complete absence. Today, despite any claims to the contrary, in the minds and speech of most Witnesses the common tendency is to think and speak in terms of “Jehovah and his organization” with Christ Jesus given only subordinate mention. Holy Spirit seldom merits even that mention. Any who think this is not the case should take the time to listen to themselves and others in their conversation. “Biblical truth” and “organizational teachings” become merged as essentially equivalent, one and the same, in the minds of most Witnesses, and it is the continued drumming of organizational superiority and authority into their thoughts that produces this mental mix-up. Generally there is an effort to dress up the authoritarian claims with words that somewhat mask this reality. Occasionally, however, the Watch Tower writers, by some simple expression more typical of Rutherford’s time, unconsciously express the actual outlook developed. In 1967, for example, a revised edition of the book Qualified to Be Ministers (page 156) made this statement: E Chap 4 103 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 104 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM In earlier centuries religious interpretations and rulings came to the people as from “the Church.” In actuality it came from the men who ran the Church at the particular time, whether popes or other church theologians. But by the emphasis on “the Church”—more so than on the particular men involved—submission to such dogma as authoritative was made more palatable. The same is true with the use of the term “organization.” During Rutherford’s time the fact that all his writings prominently carried his name to some extent impeded the effect that can now be obtained with literature and articles whose authorship is, by policy, kept anonymous. Now the human author is covered by the mantle of the organization and readers simply view what they read as “from the organization.” In reality that means, “from the men who currently occupy the positions of authority in the organization.” Witnesses are trained not to think that way, to feel guilty if they do. And that is precisely the way people in the second and third centuries were trained to think so as to achieve a near total submission to “the Church,” the controlling organizational authority. Just as the term “Church” or ekklesia then came to have a double meaning—referring at times to the community of believers and at others to the religious authority exercising control over the believers—so the word “organization” is used in two ways by the Watch Tower organization.28 It can mean all who are Witnesses worldwide, the Witness community. Or it can refer to those who form the authority structure that directs and controls that community. It is generally not difficult to tell which way the term applies. If there is exhortation to trust, put faith in, be loyal to, listen to, show submission to “the organization” it always applies in the second sense. This thought prevails in the minds of Witnesses. In the expression “Jehovah directs his people through his organization,” if “organization” were used in the first sense it would mean “Jehovah directs his people through his people,” for “organization” would refer to the whole community of Witnesses. Such expressions occur regularly in the Watch Tower publications and create no problem—simply because the minds of Witnesses almost automatically relate the term “organization” to the authority structure based in Brooklyn. It thus takes on the same sense that the word “Church” acquired in the post-apostolic period. As the individual then was made to feel dependent on “the Church” for understanding the Scriptures, so the individual Witness is made to feel incapable of understanding the Scriptures apart from “the organization.” They are told that “To it alone God’s Sa27 See chapter 3, pages 61, 62. E Chap 4 104 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 105 cred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book.” It is “the only organization on earth that understands the ‘deep things of God’!”28 The Witnesses’ dependency and individual inability was clearly argued in the October 1, 1967, Watchtower, which declared the Bible to be the organization’s book (pages 587, 590): Compare these statements with the earlier-quoted article of 1946 and its categorical denial of hierarchical claims to spiritual ‘ownership’ of the Bible. There could not be a more complete reversal of position, actually an outright adoption of the very hierarchical claims then condemned. The claims of the “Mother Church” of Catholicism were now equalled by those of the “mother organization” of the Watch Tower. 28 The Watchtower, page 402. 29 The Watchtower of September 1, 1954 (on page 529), had made essentially the same claim, saying: “In view of its unbreakable connection with the Christian theocratic organization, the Bible is organization minded and it cannot be fully understood without our having the theocratic organization in mind. . . . All the sheep in God’s flock must be organization-minded, like the Bible.” 29 E Chap 4 105 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 106 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM As the author quoted earlier expressed it, the only unambiguous instruction church leader Cyprian presented was “to remain faithful to the Church and obey its rules.”30 This was the rule of all rules if one wanted to be safe and be sure of staying under God’s approval. Cyprian and others of the early “Church Fathers” warned that rejection of the bishop’s (presiding overseer’s) instruction was tantamount to rejection of Christ and God. Ignatius, for example, in his “Epistle to the Trallians,” chapter VII, had said: For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God. . . . He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man, who despises Christ, and depreciates his appointments. Though softening the effect by the use of questions, the February 15, 1976, Watchtower (page 124) presents the same distorted viewpoint regarding any not responding to the direction proceeding from the organization: 30 A History of Christianity, page 60. E Chap 4 106 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 107 Failure to submit to the earthly organization’s direction is equated with “rejection of divine rulership.” That men can make such comparisons or analogies is actually frightening. Even more frightening is that they do it without any sense of impropriety, rather as if it is a meritorious thing to say. By their claim to be the sole source or channel of communication from the command center, those exercising the organizational authority to all intents and purposes become the command center. Again, the serious danger implicit in any such transferal of unhesitating soldier-like submission to fallible human religious leaders seems never to occur to the writer of the Watchtower’s deductive reasoning. The Authority of a Supreme Religious Council In the early centuries, control of a single congregation, or perhaps of the area surrounding a prominent city, was attained by the formation of the office of, and promotion of the authority by, a bishop or sole presiding overseer. It was by means of religious councils that a central ruling body eventually came into power internationally. Up until the 1970s, Watchtower references to a “governing body” were infrequent. From that time forward, however, strong emphasis was placed upon the position and authority of this group of men. In the early centuries Church leaders began telling Christians to look to the bodies of elders as if they were “the body of apostles.” This same outlook was inculcated in them toward the councils that were later organized. Although it claims to reject the concept of “apostolic succession” (as practiced in the Catholic Church, wherein the bishops are viewed as “successors of the apostles”), the Watch Tower organization encourages a similar outlook, presenting the Governing Body as the modern-day equivalent of the council of apostles and elders in Jerusalem. E Chap 4 107 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 108 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM Toward those in positions of authority in ranks subordinate to its own, the Governing Body views itself as standing in essentially the same relationship as the apostle Paul stood to Timothy or Titus or to the elders and other members of congregations. We have already seen (on page 99) the remarkable claim that Witnesses today can, on the basis of experience, more readily receive with confidence what comes from the “faithful and discreet slave” and its Governing Body than the Beroeans could receive what they heard from the apostle Paul. In actuality there is an appropriation, even an arrogation, of authority not merely equal to, but in many respects superior to, that of the apostles. The “chain of command” and communication from God downward is illustrated in this way in the December 15, 1971, Watchtower (page 749): In reality, the actual authority structure follows the arrangement of supreme and subordinate ranks here set out: E Chap 4 108 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 109 As eventually took place in the early centuries, a religious council has taken on a permanent character, one of constant control, internationally. The May 15, 1986, Watchtower contained an article asking the question, “Are Religious Councils Approved by God?” On page 24, it defined an “ecclesiastical council” as: . . . a representative church assembly with deliberative and often legislative authority in questions of faith, morals, and church discipline. The writer, who proceeds to argue that God does not approve of such councils, evidently did not realize that the quoted definition perfectly describes what the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is. Its sessions are for the very purpose of deliberating on and, frequently, legislating on “questions of faith, morals and church discipline.” That is what we did virtually every week during the nine years of my membership on that Body.31 In discussing emperor Constantine’s role in early councils, the same Watchtower article, on page 15, quotes historian H. G. Wells as saying: The idea of stamping out all controversy and division, stamping out all thought, by imposing one dogmatic creed upon all believers, is the idea of the single-handed man who feels that to work at all he must be free from opposition and criticism. . . . From him [Constantine] the Church acquired the disposition to be authoritative and unquestioned, to develop a centralized organization . . . . Charges of heresy proved to be a ruthless scheme to eliminate opponents who dared to defy Christendom’s church councils. Any who expressed differing opinions or even attempted to present Scriptural proof refuting the dogmas and canons (church laws) of the councils were branded as heretics. Again the Watchtower writer evidently did not realize that the description of Constantine’s disposition was a very apt description of the disposition of the Watch Tower organization’s second president, J. F. Rutherford, during whose regime a determined centralization of authority also took place. In the Society-sponsored book Faith on the March by long-time headquarters representative, A. H. MacMillan, the author says of Rutherford (page 72): 31 Interestingly, the Watchtower article (on page 26) quotes a historical work as stating that, aside from the one Jerusalem council described in Acts chapter fifteen, “all councils are products of the post-apostolic church. They do not belong to the period of the foundation of the church.” Again, the writer evidently failed to recognize that this presents the Jerusalem council as a one-time occasion, not as part of an ongoing, permanent arrangement for regular sessions of some type of “governing body.” E Chap 4 109 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 110 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM He would never tolerate anything that would be contrary to what he clearly understood the Bible to teach. He was so strict about that, he would permit nothing that would seem to show a compromise when it came to an issue of truth. The authority which enabled him to “tolerate” or “not tolerate,” to “permit” or “not permit,” disagreement by others with what he personally understood as truth, was something he insisted upon as his presidential prerogative. He effectually took away the control exercised by a board of directors, eliminated completely an editorial board, assumed full authority over everything published, and forced the departure of those staff members unwilling to support these and similar actions. This was proclaimed as “a weeding out, a time of judgment, a cleansing of the entire organization set apart to become the household of God’s servants.”32 As shown in Crisis of Conscience, the supreme authority of the presidency that he fought for, and succeeded in gaining, was removed from that position in 1976 and passed on to a body of men, a Governing Body.33 But that is essentially all that happened—a transferal of power and authority from an individual to a collective religious council. Though expressions of hope were initially made that the change would promote a more humble, brotherly spirit, the fact is that the “disposition to be authoritative and unquestioned, to develop a centralized organization” which historian Wells spoke of, remained. As stated, the blunt, sometimes coarse, language employed by Rutherford was replaced by more scholarly, more intellectually appealing presentations. Yet that same disposition that resents, deprecates and seeks to silence any difference of viewpoint clearly controls the actions and decisions and outlook of the religious council called the Governing Body. The evidence thus far presented and that which follows is but a fraction of that available to demonstrate the validity of this statement. Equating an Organization with God and Christ Among all the claims and arguments of church leaders in the second and third centuries who pushed for greater human authority and centralized control, there is virtually no statement that is not paralleled in the publications of the Watch Tower organization in recent times. When study and research finally brought this home to me, I found it increasingly difficult to harmonize the organizational self-approval, self-praise, and self-identification as God’s channel, 32 Faith on the March, page 81. 33 See Crisis of Conscience, pages 56-107. E Chap 4 110 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 111 with its simultaneous calls for humility and meekness on the part of everyone else. Most of all I felt deeply disturbed at its interposing of itself between the individual and God—on the one hand encouraging people to seek a “personal relationship” with God, while at the same time superimposing on this their claims to be the indispensable means for receiving divine guidance and blessing. God would simply not grant any person these favors apart from them, they insisted. I could not make this square with Jesus’ words at John, chapter fourteen, verse 6: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Or with the words of Peter at Acts, chapter four, verse 12: There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. or with those of Paul, who, in writing of the spiritual building done by Christians, says, as recorded at First Corinthians, chapter three, verse 11: For no man can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ. There seemed to be a definite infringement upon Jesus’ divine role. If no one comes to the Father except through him, then—according to the published statements already presented—it was being claimed that no one comes to Christ except through the Watch Tower organization, which thus inserts itself between the individual and God’s Son. Logically, this makes the human organization an essential for salvation. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the claims of the “Mother Church” that no one can find salvation outside the Church are clearly matched by the “mother organization,” as seen in the following quotations from the October 1, 1967, Watchtower (pages 591, 592) and the November 15, 1981, Watchtower (page 21): E Chap 4 111 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 112 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM In a talk to the Brooklyn headquarters staff on January 23, 1981, Governing Body member Karl Klein voiced his personal support for this position—that there is no way to gain everlasting life except by and through the Watch Tower organization, saying: No doubt about it, God’s Word serves as a light on our pathway as regards our conduct and beliefs. But Jehovah God has also provided a “faithful and discreet slave” organization to help us understand and apply the Bible. And unless we get in touch with that “faithful and discreet slave” we will never get on the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do! . . . So, let us never forget the point that Peter made when Jesus asked his apostles if they wanted to leave also. There simply is no other place to go for spiritual food and genuine Christian association than with those who are loyal to the “faithful and discreet slave” organization.”34 This was echoed in a subsequent article in the February 15, 1981, Watchtower (page 19): 34 From a word-for-word transcript of his talk on that date. E Chap 4 112 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 113 Among Witnesses disciplined to accept submissively whatever the organization gives them, it seldom registers on their minds, or gives rise to any real concern, that this final statement quoted effectively replaces Jesus Christ with the “‘faithful and discreet slave’ organization.” After quoting Peter’s question, “Whom shall we go away to?” the Watchtower writer says, “No question about it. We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ organization.”35 35 This article was perhaps also written by Karl Klein, as the use of such phrases as “No question about it” and “No doubt about it,” are almost a trademark of his writing and speech. E Chap 4 113 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 114 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM With regard to Jesus’ question, Governing Body member Karl Klein spoke of there being no other “place” to go for spiritual direction other than to the Watch Tower organization. By contrast, the apostle Peter himself gave a quite different answer, speaking not of a “place” but of a person, saying: You [Jesus Christ] have sayings of everlasting life. Only among a thoroughly indoctrinated audience would the Watchtower writer’s replacing Christ with the organization be possible without producing the slightest murmur of dissent. Both the talk by Governing Body member Karl Klein and this article made it appear that Christ Jesus has so firmly committed himself to a contractual relationship with the earthly Society that he cannot act apart from them, cannot speak to individuals except through them, cannot enlighten or guide individuals without first using the mediation of the Watch Tower organization. Most Witnesses must honestly admit (if only to themselves) that they frequently use Peter’s question, “Whom shall we go away to,” to show that “we must stick with the organization,” which is not at all what Peter himself said. Thus the usurpation of the role of God’s Son as the one and only “way” to truth and life has become a fact, as their own minds testify. His claim to being “the way and the truth and the life” is not exclusively his. It must be shared with the “mother” organization, the Watch Tower organization, without which no one can come to understand Bible truth or find the way to life. The things said by Christ about his role in God’s purpose, and those said by Peter of God’s Son are appropriated and attributed to an earthly, human organization, crediting it with the role of vicegerent of Christ. Its authority is presented as meriting a submission approximating, if not equivalent to, that accorded to Christ. There simply is no life without it, the organization. To deny that arrogant claim is to invite expulsion on the astounding charge of “apostasy”!36 36 It may be noted that the Time magazine article of February 22, 1982, quotes me as saying, “There is no life outside the organization.” I made that statement to Ann Constable, the Time reporter, in explaining to her the effect disfellowshiping has on Witnesses, the attitude many have when facing disfellowshipment, that they feel “there is no life outside the organization.” Since, when the article appeared, the context gave the appearance that this expressed my own sentiment, I immediately wrote a letter to the editors, stating, “When I said this, I was describing not my own feelings but the viewpoint prevalent among most Witnesses and implicit in the organization’s teachings. My understanding from Scripture is that God’s Son is, exclusively, `the way and the truth and the life.’” The contents of this letter were published in the “Letters to the Editor” section of a subsequent issue of Time. See the Appendix. E Chap 4 114 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 115 All this means nothing more nor less than that this earthly, human organization has become, to all intents and purposes, a mediator. Just as imperfect, sinful man cannot go to God apart from the mediation of his Son, whose ransom sacrifice provides the means for reconciliation with God, so, it is taught, man cannot come into an approved relationship with Christ and, through him, with God, cannot even rightly understand the truths about Christ that are the foundation for faith, without going through the earthly, human organization, the Watch Tower organization and its Governing Body. It functions, therefore, as a mediatorial society. This is why all who fail to come into association with it must die in the coming “great tribulation,” according to the published teaching. I found all this at total variance with the clear statement at First Timothy, chapter two, verses 5 and 6: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all. Very unlike the Watch Tower organization in its elevation of itself to a mediatorial role in the salvation of others, the apostle Paul forcefully rejected such a claim for himself, pointedly asking those to whom he wrote, “Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13, NIV). Only Christ has died for us as a ransom sacrifice, not the men composing any human organization or governing body; therefore only He has received the right to act as mediator between us and God. Baptism—Validated by Whom? Historical writer Johnson observed that in the post-apostolic period it became the case that, along with the Bible, “the sacraments . . . lost their meaning if used outside the church.” A primary “sacrament” was that of baptism. Initially among Bible Students in Russell’s day, no issue was made as to one’s having been baptized while affiliated with one of the various Christian denominations. The only question was whether one understood the meaning of baptism and whether this was by immersion.37 That remained the case for over seven decades. As late as the July 1, 1955, Watchtower (page 412) it was stated that rebaptism was necessary only if the “previous baptism was therefore not in symbol of a dedication” or if it was not by immersion. 37 I recall my uncle, Fred Franz, when already the Watch Tower’s vice president, remarking to me that if his baptism in the Presbyterian Church had been by immersion (rather than sprinkling) he would have considered it still valid. E Chap 4 115 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 116 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM One year later, in the July 1, 1956, Watchtower the position was reversed. It said (page 406): This was, however, followed up by a “Question from Readers” about six months later that qualified the terms for rejecting as invalid any baptism “outside the organization”—even though by immersion. Now it was said that the cutoff date for possible validity of such baptism was the year 1918. Why? Because “in A.D. 1918 . . . Jehovah God accompanied by his Messenger of the Covenant came to the temple and cast off Christendom.” If the person had been immersed in symbol of dedication to God and Christ before that date, and had also left his or her previous denomination and affiliated with the Watch Tower organization before 1918, it was left up to the person’s conscience to decide if rebaptism was in order or not. For all others the firm position was: E Chap 4 116 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 117 He must be rebaptized. The question was positively settled because the words of “paragraph 14” of the Watchtower settled it. Scriptural evidence was apparently not required. In the post-apostolic period, baptism “lost its meaning if performed outside the Church,” that is, outside the domain of religious authority. The same position was now taken by the Watch Tower organization of any baptism not performed within its domain. Back in 1955, the Watchtower had said: A Christian . . . cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. This shows, among other things, that Christianity is not a denominational affair . . . .39 In talks preceding a baptismal ceremony, it was common for the speaker to remind the candidates that “you are not symbolizing your dedication to a work, or dedication to an organization, but your dedication to a person—Jehovah God.”40 Somewhat similarly, the October 1, 1966, Watchtower (page 603) stated: 38 The Watchtower, December 15, 1956, page 763. 39 The Watchtower, July 1, 1955, page 411. 40 As I recall, this point was even included in outlines supplied by the Watch Tower for those giving baptismal talks. 41 The Watchtower, October 1, 1942, page 302. 38 41 E Chap 4 117 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 118 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM These questions were essentially close in content to the expressions of Peter and others of the apostolic period when calling on persons to “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”42 In 1956 and (with very minor variation) for many years thereafter the questions presented at Witness baptismal services were these: With absolutely no Biblical discussion for making any major change in these basic questions which individuals must answer affirmatively to qualify for baptism, the June 1, 1985, Watchtower now listed these as the questions to which all candidates were to respond: The April 15, 1987, Watchtower (page 12) gives this unusual explanation of the reason for this change saying: “Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization.” This supposed “simplification” did only one thing: it required of each candidate a declaration of submission and obligation to an earthly organization. If we read the Christian 42 Acts 2:38, NEB; 1 Peter 3:21, 22. 43 The Watchtower, July 1, 1956, page 407. 44 43 E Chap 4 118 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 119 Scriptures we see that the crucial factor validating baptism was in every case that those taking that step “believe on the Lord Jesus” as God’s Messiah and their Redeemer, able to save them.44 They were “baptized into Christ Jesus.”45 This was “simple” enough that persons could, and did, comprehend it in one day, in a few hours. There is nothing apostolic about the Watch Tower organization’s “loaded” wording of the matter, for the apostles never brought into the picture the concept of an “earthly organization,” which, as has been clearly demonstrated, refers to nothing more or less than a human authority structure. Christ had told his disciples to baptize persons “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”46 The Watch Tower’s second baptismal question effectively replaces God’s holy Spirit with “the spirit-directed organization.” While the Spirit receives token mention, once again we are faced with the situation where the organization appropriates a divinely assigned role for itself. It clearly conveys the idea that God’s holy Spirit will not operate on the person being baptized except in connection with the Watch Tower organization. It does not emphasize the way in which the individual being baptized will henceforth be guided by God’s Spirit but instead stresses the “spirit-directed organization.” It seems incredible that the Watchtower can then refer to this as a “simplification” of previous questions. It speaks of an “intimate relationship with God” but makes this meaningless for it shoves the earthly organization into the matter, making it, not an intimate relationship with God, but an intimate relationship “with God and his earthly organization.” Whereas Jesus spoke only of “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” the organization presumes to place itself in this sacred picture as an indispensable party to it. This is tantamount to a servant telling people that they can have contacts and relationship with a master only provided the servant is always there too, acting as intermediary, spokesman, manager, decisionrenderer. Such an attitude could only be classified as arrogant. For 19 centuries persons had been baptized without their baptism being prefaced by any such wording. For over one hundred years persons among Watch Tower associates had been baptized without such wording. Did they not properly understand what their baptism meant? Why, after over 100 years, was this “simplification” now needed in order for persons to have “full comprehension” of what their baptism signified? 44 Acts 16:31-33; compare also Acts 2:36; 8:5, 12, 27-38; 9:1-20; 10:34-48; 11:16, 17; 18:8; 19:3-5. 45 Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27. 46 Matthew 28:19, NEB. E Chap 4 119 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 120 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM I believe that the 1985 alteration represents a concern to have persons acknowledge formal ties to the organization, a commitment to it as a religious authority over them and therefore an implied acceptance of its government over them and its right to direct the formation of ecclesiastical courts to “try” those viewed as in violation of its rules and policies. In recent years, a fair number of persons have simply withdrawn from association with the Witness organization without making any formal notification of disassociation. Even though continuing to live moral lives, if they subsequently do or say something that manifests that they are not in full accord with each and all of the organization’s teachings and policies, they are frequently approached by elders, questioned and often summoned to a “judicial hearing.” Some have stated that they saw no reason to attend such hearing, that they did not view themselves as subject to the organization’s ecclesiastical authority. Some have even had an attorney send a letter to the elder body stating their position and requesting that they not be subjected to further investigation, interrogation or summons. In virtually all such cases, the Watch Tower Society’s legal department has mailed to the person (or to the attorney, if one was involved) a bulky package in the form of a legal brief, presenting much evidence of the organization’s success in the courts in related cases and citing numerous legal cases in support of their right to act as a religious “government” and “ecclesiastical court” toward persons baptized by the Witnesses. In essence, the material states that the person or persons involved have only two alternatives, either attend the “judicial hearing” or formally disassociate themselves.47 As an example, the material cites one U. S. Supreme Court decision which, among other things, says: The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. The “right” referred to is the legal right of an “ecclesiastical government” to act in the manner described. Thus, the brief sent out by the Watch Tower Society’s attorney stresses the “legal” factor when summing up matters in this way: 47 The reasons why many do not wish to make such a formal disassociation are considered in Chapters 10, 11 and 17 of this book. E Chap 4 120 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 121 In objecting to being investigated and “tried” by elders, some who have withdrawn have pointed out that in the pre-1985 period when they were baptized they ‘dedicated themselves to God and not to an organization.’ The altered questions now used plainly tell the baptismal candidate that he is committing himself to a “dedication and baptism” that ‘identifies him as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization.’ This assures that he has indeed forfeited any “legal” right to say he is not subject to the organization’s government and ecclesiastical courts. At least for the organization’s legal department, this does, indeed, “simplify” matters. I find it a sad evidence of the concern for authority that any organization would utilize the sacred, very personal step of baptism as occasion for asserting its authority in the baptized one’s life. Even as religious leaders of the early centuries turned the clock back and reverted to Old Testament views of a special priestly class, thereby demoting all Christians not of that class to an inferior position with God, so the Watch Tower organization regularly endeavors to place its members in a similar Old Testament context. At the annual “district assemblies” the programs often feature dramas in which attitudes toward such men as law covenant mediator Moses, high priest Aaron, King Saul, King David or other men of special, even unique and lofty, position are depicted. Unblushingly, the organization then proceeds to parallel itself and its position with such ones and forcefully stresses that it deserves to be shown the same deference and submission. It is as if the coming of Christ had not taken place or wrought E Chap 4 121 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 122 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM the radical change that it did, removing all such distinctions and placing all on the same level before their heavenly Father and in the same relationship to their Head and Master, Christ. An article in the magazine Christianity Today of October 24, 1980, points out the concern of the Reformation leaders at seeing that the institutional church had become an end instead of a means, adding: What they opposed was a church that had arrogated to itself an authority for its teachings that placed them beyond the correction of the Scriptures. The church had ceased to be a means of inculcating the knowledge of God and had become an end under whose teachings everyone was subject. It took less than a hundred years for the organization built around the Watch Tower to complete the whole pattern of the past. In that comparatively short space of time it went from a reasonably modest, unassuming, tolerant stance to one of dogmatism, to a despotic imposition on the minds of its adherents of what it describes as “the great body of truths” produced by it, its organizationally developed traditional teachings, its official creed. From a condition of relative freedom as brothers and common members of a universal priesthood under Christ, it turned to appropriating for its leaders, not only apostolic authority, but a centralized control and power over others that the apostles themselves never presumed to exercise toward their brothers, since they viewed themselves ‘not as masters over others’ faith, but as fellows workers for their joy.’48 It was largely during the 1920s and 1930s that the mold was cast for this concept and attitude in the Witness organization. Sadly, it has been allowed to remain and continues intact to this day. The existing leadership has never been able to break free from the rigidity of that concept. Does this imply that the men in positions of authority within the organization are all “power-hungry,” dictatorial persons? I certainly do not view them that way, and on the basis of personal experience I am satisfied that many are not. In the early centuries, there were men who, like the “wolves” of whom Paul warned, sought to have people follow them as leaders, and exalted human authority to attain this. However, there were doubtless other professed Christian men who, faced with frustrating situations, seeing people being swayed by what they viewed as erroneous teachings, went along with the buildup of human authority under the false idea that the end justified the means, and 48 2 Corinthians 1:24. E Chap 4 122 11/24/06, 6:57 PM The Recurring Pattern 123 thus they gave in to the lure of authority. The same influences operate in our times. The authoritarian atmosphere that has developed in the Witness administration does not necessarily reflect the heart attitude of all Governing Body members. There is really no effective way for a man to “campaign” to become part of that select group. Invitations to membership result from secret sessions of the Body and generally come as a surprise to the invited one. In my experience, a few of the men were actually of a quite mild nature, not inclined toward dominating others. They rarely even spoke in the discussions, seemed somewhat in awe of certain members and almost always voted as these voted. Others, becoming members at the Body’s invitation, thereafter seem, in a sense, to have been seduced—that is, having had a taste of being a part of the authority structure, they find it hard to relinquish. They perhaps would favor a more tolerant, less domineering approach but remind one of those referred to in Jesus’ words recorded at John 12:42, 43. They express themselves, but not to the point of “making waves.” There remain those who do show a definite concern for organizational, as well as personal, authority. Even here I am personally reluctant to take any judgmental attitude toward them as individuals. The causes of certain attitudes can be difficult to fathom. With humans, the imposition of authority often is a sign of weakness and insecurity rather than strength. To work patiently with people, reason with them, to have confidence in the power of truth and seek to demonstrate the rightness of a position in the face of adverse attitudes, and, by word and example, to build people up in faith and love and understanding, is a far more difficult, far more demanding task than simply to order people to do things, legislate and impose rules, and suppress questioning by a show of authority.49 The latter is the course of weakness, and even as husbands, parents, employers and others all too often succumb to it, sometimes out of exasperation or a feeling of helplessness, so do men in religious systems. And what is true of the authority structure of the Watch Tower organization in this respect is true of other religious organizations as well. So, as I stated in Crisis of Conscience, my belief is that the fundamental evil lies in the concept of divinely ordained exclusive authority vested in the Watch Tower organization, along with the view that only by the exercise of such authority can unity, order and productivity be achieved. If not all, then certainly some of the 49 Compare Proverbs 16:32; 2 Timothy 2:24, 25; James 3:13-18; 1 Peter 5:1-7. E Chap 4 123 11/24/06, 6:57 PM 124 IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM men of the Governing Body have been victimized by that concept, entrapped by its appeal to fleshly thinking. The seductive deceptiveness of authority’s appeal, however, does not free us from responsibility. Though much of what exists today is, as has been shown, a legacy of the past—even of the distant past before ever the Watch Tower organization and its various presidents and leaders came on the scene—it is still a legacy that does not have to be accepted. The unscripturalness of the Watch Tower organization’s exalted claims and infringement on divine authority certainly is discernible, and this produces a degree of responsibility for both promoters and supporters. To fail to see it because of not wanting to see it is no escape from that responsibility. The stage has been reached where, for many, possibly the majority, to listen to the organization is to listen to God, to reject its message and teaching is to show disrespect for God. Even to be hesitant to receive its interpretations or, far worse, to doubt them, is to show lack of faith in God and to doubt Him. Nor should any person ever think that his or her mental abilities are capable of understanding Scripture without the direction of the Brooklynbased organization. Walking with it, wherever it may lead, is walking with God. To see that it is heading down a wrong path and refrain from following it is evidence of an independent and rebellious spirit. To see what the right understanding is before it does and—worst of all, to speak about it—is a sign of presumption, of running ahead of God. I cannot but feel that the spirit of the “man of lawlessness” has been operative in producing such a situation, working in similar ways to what it has effected in the past. The equation of the organization with God among Witnesses is almost palpable and is deeply embedded in the minds of most members, far more than they may realize. I do not believe that all make this equation, for I know individuals, even a few in prominent positions, who have expressed themselves as unable to give full credence to the exalted claims made. But I am also quite certain that to avoid this equation requires a constant “editing” in their own minds of published statements, mentally reshaping and remolding extreme statements—in reality adjusting them to say something different from what they actually say—so as to justify acceptance of them. There is a continual rationalizing of their reasons for passively submitting to the leadership’s calls for implicit submission and loyalty. And, with all this, they must exercise constant caution to assure that their actual feelings are not evident to others. Surely this cannot be called Christian freedom.
※ 이 글의 목적은 단순히 워치타워를 비판하려는 것이 아니라 그들의 잘못된 가르침, 특히
가상적인 하늘왕국교리를 바로잡아 하느님의 나라를 실제적으로 이 땅 위에 설립하려는 데
있습니다.
예수님의 가르침은 이 사회를 하느님의 뜻에 합당한 사회로 개혁하는 데 있습니다.
그러한 사회는 위에 계신 하느님의 통치하시는 사회 곧 천국으로 표현되었습니다.
이 글은 동조자들을 구하는데 세상의 방식인 자본주의의 협력을 배제합니다.
시간이 아무리 많이 걸리고 우리의 생애에 이루어지지 않는다 하더라도 세상과 타협의 길을
가서는 하느님의 나라는 탄생하지 않는다고 생각합니다.
단지 한 두 명의 진심어린 동조자가 있다 하더라도 그것으로 우리의 소임은 연결된다고 생각합니다.
파18 11월호 8-12면 “나는 당신의 진리 안에서 걸을 것입니다”
“나는 당신의 진리 안에서 걸을 것입니다”
“오 여호와여, 내게 당신의 길을 가르쳐 주십시오. 내가 당신의 진리 안에서 걸을 것입니다.”—시 86:11
1-3. (ㄱ) 우리는 성경 진리를 어떻게 여겨야 합니까? 예를 들어 설명해 보십시오. (기사 제목 위에 있는 삽화 참조) (ㄴ) 이 기사에서 어떤 질문을 살펴볼 것입니까?
물건을 구매한 후에 반품하는 일이 흔히 있습니다. 조사에 따르면 일부 나라에서는 매장에서 물건을 구매한 후 반품하는 경우가 9퍼센트에 달합니다. 온라인으로 구매한 물건은 그 비율이 30퍼센트가 넘습니다. 구매자들은 물건이 기대한 것과 다르거나 결함이 있거나 그냥 마음에 들지 않았을지 모릅니다. 그래서 다른 물건으로 교환하거나 환불을 받기로 결정한 것입니다.
2 우리도 물건을 산 후 환불을 요청할지 모릅니다. 하지만 우리는 성경 진리의 “정확한 지식”을 “사고서” 결코 반품하려고 즉 다시 “팔려고” 하지 않을 것입니다. (잠언 23:23 낭독. 디모데 전서 2:4
3 우리는 성경 진리에 대해 예수의 짧은 비유에 나오는 사람과 비슷하게 느낍니다. 예수께서는 하느님의 왕국에 관한 진리가 그것을 찾는 사람들에게 얼마나 소중한지 강조하기 위해, 좋은 진주를 찾아다니다가 결국 발견한 상인에 관한 비유를 말씀하셨습니다. 그 진주는 매우 값진 것이었기 때문에 상인은 자기가 가진 모든 것을 “신속히 팔아” 그것을 샀습니다. (마태 13:45, 46(요한 3서 2-4 낭독) 진리 안에서 걷는다는 것은 진리에 따라 생활하는 것을 의미합니다. 다시 말해, 진리를 우리의 삶에서 첫째 자리에 두고 진리와 일치하게 행동하는 것입니다. 이제 다음의 질문을 살펴보겠습니다. 일부 사람들은 어떻게 진리를 “팔게” 됩니까? 그처럼 안타까운 실수를 하지 않으려면 어떻게 해야 합니까? “진리 안에서 계속 걸으려는” 결심을 어떻게 강화할 수 있습니까?
.
.
.
17. 당신은 왜 진리를 소중히 여깁니까?
17 진리는 여호와께서 주신 소중한 선물입니다. 진리 덕분에 우리는 무엇보다도 값진 것 즉 하늘의 아버지와 친밀한 관계를 누리고 있습니다. 하지만 그분이 지금까지 밝혀 주신 진리는 이제 겨우 시작에 불과합니다! 우리는 하느님이 약속하신 영원한 생명을 누리면서 진리를 끝없이 배우게 될 것입니다. 그러므로 진리를 값진 진주처럼 소중히 여기십시오. 계속해서 “진리를 사고 결코 팔지 마십시오.” 그렇게 한다면 당신도 다윗처럼 여호와께 한 이러한 약속을 지킬 수 있을 것입니다. “나는 당신의 진리 안에서 걸을 것입니다.”—시 86:11
비평:The poet now shows how one attains unto wisdom - the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God:
17 Let not thine heart strive after sinners,
But after the fear of Jahve all the day.
18 Truly there is a future,
And thy hope shall not come to naught.
The lxx, Jerome, the Venet., and Luther, and the Arab. interpreters, render 17b as an independent clause: "but be daily in the fear of the Lord." That is not a substantival clause (cf. Proverbs 22:7Proverbs 3:31; Proverbs 24:1, Proverbs 24:19
In Proverbs 23:18Proverbs 3:34
(Note: The form כּי אם־ does not contradict the connection of the two particles. This use of the Makkeph is general, except in these three instances: Genesis 15:4; Numbers 35:33; Nehemiah 2:2
If אם is meant hypothetically, then, with the lxx ἐὰν γὰρ τηρήσῃς αὐτὰ ἔκγονα, we should supply after it תּשׁמרנּה, that had fallen out. Ewald's: much rather there is yet a future (Dchsel: much rather be happy there is...), is also impossible; for the preceding clause is positive, not negative. The particles כּי אם, connected thus, mean: for if (e.g., Lamentations 3:32Jeremiah 26:15Isaiah 55:10Genesis 28:171 Kings 20:61 Samuel 25:34Judges 15:7; 2 Samuel 15:21 (where אם is omitted by the Kerı̂); 2 Kings 5:20; Jeremiah 51:14; and thus it is also meant here, 18a, notwithstanding that כי אם, in its more usual signification, "besides only, but, nisi," precedes, as at 1 Samuel 21:6Proverbs 23:18 and Proverbs 23:17Proverbs 24:14Psalm 37:37Jeremiah 29:11Psalm 37:38
며칠 전부터 성경이나 기타 불러오기가 안되어 글을 편집할 수가 없어 불확정적인 시간까지 이 칼럼을 중단합니다. 그동안 관심을 가지고 이 칼럼에 들러주신 회원 여러분께 감사드리며
또 언젠가 재개 또는 다른 명칭으로 글을 올릴 때 들러시어 내용을 참고해주시기를 바랍니다. <꾸벅>
|