Loyalty and the Watchtower
The Watchtower and Loyalty
The Watchtower Society encourages Jehovah's Witnesses to go out to knock
on people's doors and also to talk to them informally to bring them "the
good news of the Kingdom." Part of their efforts in this regard involve
trying to get people to question, to critically analyze their own religious
beliefs and organizations. During the process of conducting a "Bible study",
Jehovah's Witnesses refer to all other religions collectively as Babylon the
Great, the empire of false religion. The subset of Babylon the Great that
receives the most critical attention is Christendom.
The Watchtower Society links the clergy of Christendom to the scriptural "man
of lawlessness". They are characterized as unprincipled, lying, cheating,
egotistical, stubborn, money grubbing, pedophiles. The laity are portrayed as
the ignorant, blind, mislead prey of their clergy. The blame for almost every
ill of modern society from moral decline to crime to both world wars is laid
on the doorstep of Christendom.
A thought occured to me while reading the March 15, 1996 The
Watchtower. It has to do with what is written on pages 16 and 17,
paragraph 9 of the article "Meeting the Challenge of Loyalty":
9 We now come to the matter of being loyal to Jehovah's
visible organization. Certainly, we owe loyalty to it, including "the
faithful and discreet slave," through which the Christian congregation is
fed spiritually (Matthew 24:45-47) Suppose that something appears in Watch
Tower publications that we do not understand or agree with at the moment. What
will we do? Take offense and leave the organization? That is what some did when
The Watch Tower, many years ago, applied the new covenant to the Millennium.
Others took offense at what The Watchtower once said on the issue of
neutrality. If those who stumbled over these matters had been loyal to the
organization and to their brothers, they would have waited on Jehovah to
clarify these matters, which he did in his due time. Thus, loyalty includes
waiting patiently until further understanding is published by the faithful and
discreet slave.
The part about "Others took offense at what The Watchtower once said
about neutrality" refers to the Standfasters who broke away because the
Watch Tower said that it was okay to buy war bonds and encouraged the Bible
Students to support the National Day of Prayer for the victory of the allies in
WWI. The 3/15/96 Watchtower is basically saying that the Standfasters should
have loyally stayed with the organization until Jehovah clarified the matter.
Governing body member Karl Klein, in his life story which was published in
the October 1, 1984 Watchtower (page 22), put it this way:
Shortly after my baptism in 1918, my loyalty to fellow Bible
Students was put to the test. World War I was raging, and even though the most
prominent brothers had been unjustly imprisoned over the war issue, the need
for Christian neutrality was not fully appreciated by those then taking the
lead. A few who saw the issue clearly took offense and separated themselves
from the Bible Students, calling themselves Standfasters. They warned me that
if I stayed with the Bible Students I would lose out on being of the "little
flock" of Jesus' anointed followers. (Luke 12:32) Mother, though not yet
dedicated, helped me to make the right decision. I could not see myself leaving
those from whom I had learned so much, and I therefore decided to take my
chances with my Bible Student brothers. It really was a test of loyalty. Since
then, I have observed many similar tests of loyalty. When mistakes are made,
those not wholly loyal at heart seem to pounce upon them as an excuse for
quitting. - Compare Psalm 119:165
I noticed that nowhere in his discussion of this situation did Klein
mention loyalty to Jehovah, loyalty to what what right or loyalty to one's own
conscience. The only issue he addressed was loyalty to the Bible Students (as
Jehovah's Witnesses were then known). Klein admits that it was the Standfasters
who saw the issue clearly.
The WTS has taught for years that the remnant shared bloodguilt for WWI
because of their not remaining strictly neutral and that their lack of
neutrality resulted in their being allowed to go into captivity to Babylon the
Great. As an example, notice this from the "Man's Salvation" book,
page 114:
In similar fashion, the modern-day remnant of spiritual Israel
had to do some reforming as to their way and thoughts as World War I ended on
November 11, 1918, and they entered still alive on earth into the postwar
period. Their exile from God's full favor in Babylon the Great's realm was
about to end, and it became the proper time for they to think about their
failings and shortcomings with regard to God's worship and service. They had
come under a community responsibility because of the bloodshed and violence of
World War I. They needed to search for Jehovah and to call upon His name in
prayer ...
Later, on page 187-8, the same book says:
During World War I of 1914-1918 B.C.E., some of the remnant of
spiritual Israel accepted non-combatant service in the fighting armies, and
thus they came under bloodguilt because of their sharing in community
responsibility for the blood spilled in war. However, in 1939, the year in
which World War II erupted, all the remnant of spiritual Israel and also those
of the 'great crowd' of sheeplike companions declared themselved in favor of
absolute neutrality toward all worldly conflicts, regardless of nationality.
The publication of the article 'Neutrality' in the issue of November 1, 1939,
of The Watchtower set forth their position.
In the book "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached,"
the WTS establishes another aspect of bloodguilt and community responsibility.
This is from pages 380-1. After linking the clergy of Christendom with the "man
of lawlessness," paragraph 18 says:
Of course, what one prominent member of this clerical "man"
does attaches blame to all the other members of the clergy class for their
agreeing with what is done or not protesting against it or for acquiescing in
it and remaining with the clergy organization. They all share a community
responsibility and culpability for what a member of the clergy class does in a
representative way as when speaking or acting for the whole group.
Here and elsewhere in WT publications, the Society establishes the teaching
that when one is a member of any group, he is communally responsible for
whatever is done by that group. While both the "Salvation" and "Thousand
Years" books are more than 20 years old, I do not think that the teachings
have changed on these matters.
In the September 8, 1987 Awake!, (pages 10,11) the Watchtower makes the
following appeal to members of other churches under the subheading: "If
Your Church Fails to Act, Will You?
If, after making an honest investigation, you are less than
pleased with what you see, do more than just complain. A journalist, while
commenting on Karl Barth's statement that a church is its members, logically
concluded: 'Church members ... are responsible for what the church says and
does.' So ask yourself: Am I willing to share responsibility for everything
my church says and does? Can I really be proud of having all its members as
spiritual brothers?
So, on the one hand, the Standfasters are being condemned as disloyal and
at the same time, members of other churches are being urged to remember that
they are communally responsible for what their church did and does.
Putting all of this together, it seems that the March 15, 1996 The
Watchtower is saying that the Standfasters should have remained loyal to the
Watchtower Society and stayed with it even while it, by its own admission,
incurred bloodguilt and divine disfavor because of not being neutral.
Put more simply, the WT is asking its members to put loyalty to the
organization over loyalty to God, loyalty to what is right and loyalty to their
own consciences.
Visit Doctor
Bob's Home Page Doctor Bob, like thousands of JW's, cannot publicly declare
who they are lest they lose contact with everyone they love. They stay in the
organization and wait for their loved ones to see the truth about that
organization.
|