|
Watchtower
Spokesman Speaks Out on Blood
The following
is a transcript of an interview with the Liberal Elder (LE) and Paul Gillies
(PG), spokesman for the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, conducted by Roger
Bolton (RB) on "Sunday" - BBC Radio 4, 14 June 1998
R.B. - Now almost all
of us know about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they knock on the door from time
to time and that they refuse to accept blood transfusions, sometimes with fatal
results. But a dissident body of Jehovah's Witnesses have now begun a campaign
via the Internet to end the religious group's opposition to transfusions altogether.
These rebels insist on remaining anonymous because they believe that to speak
openly would result in immediate excommunication. I talked to one of the anonymous
dissidents earlier. He calls himself the Liberal Elder and asked us to disguise
his voice.
L.E. - Let me start
off by saying that Witness teachings on blood have been in a state of perpetual
change. Most Witnesses and doctors are very unclear about the Watchtower's current
blood policy since it has been revised so many times.
R.B. - I mean, what
is now allowed? I gather that transplants are allowed; some blood products are
allowed; but blood transfusions are not. Is that the situation?
L.E. - The organ transplant
issue came up in 1967, beginning of 67. That lasted for 13 years and then was
finally dropped in 1980. Blood transfusions continue to be banned.
R.B. - The Jehovah's
Witnesses have traditionally quoted Acts 15:28-29 as the key, believing that
Christians must abstain from eating blood and meat of animals from which the
blood has not been correctly drained. How has that been used to argue that blood
transfusions are not allowed?
L.E. - The essence
of the argument is that a blood transfusion is in fact the equivalent of eating
blood. So what they have done now is in effect created a new law for Jehovah's
Witnesses, saying that it is wrong to sustain life by means of blood. That's
the expression your consistently hear used in the Watchtower and by Witnesses.
Unfortunately, that expression cannot be found anywhere in the Bible; so they
have a policy that is basically an organisational policy, without Scriptural
merit.
R.B. - Do you think
people have died unnecessarily then as a result of this belief?
L.E. - There is no
doubt. We would estimate about 3 a day so that the figures we are talking about
are perhaps 1,000 Witnesses or more per year.
R.B. - How much support
do you and your colleagues have in this?
L.E. - That's a difficult
question to answer since even discussing the subject has the potential to lead
to expulsion from one's congregation. It is probably fair to say that the number
is in the tens of thousands and the figure grows every day.
R.B. - But if you were
to come into the open now and if we were to call you by your name and so on,
expulsion, you think, would be inevitable, would it?
L.E. - Absolutely.
R.B. - Why is the Watchtower,
as you put it, so opposed to that form of debate? Is there no democracy within
the church?
L.E. - There certainly is not. They
believe that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is God's channel for
communicating with Jehovah's Witnesses. It is that simple. Once you accept that
someone speaks for God then to disagree with that person or, in this case, that
group is to disagree with God.
R.B. - In the end,
if you cannot get your way and the Watchtower Society won't move, would you
consider a breakaway movement, a breakaway church?
L.E. - Me, personally,
no, that's not my intent. They are certainly entitled to teach whatever they
want; they have that right. Unfortunately for those who are, like myself, born
into the organisation, who have all their family members, all their friends
and, in some cases, even their business associates all Jehovah's Witnesses,
the options are not very good. So, really, all that we are really looking for
is the opportunity to be able to make free choices without, as they promised
to the European Commission on Human Rights, without sanction or control.
R.B. - And act according
to your conscience?
L.E. - That is correct.
R.B. - Well, with me
now is Paul Gillies, a spokesperson for the Jehovah's Witnesses in the United
Kingdom. Paul, can we deal with the democracy question first? If you knew who
our previous interviewee, the Liberal Elder was, would he be excommunicated
for his views?
P.G. - Well, let me
say this. His implication is that we have an automatic disfellowshiping procedure
if somebody breaks Bible law. That is certainly misleading and not the case.
It does not emphasise the care that we have for one another. Because initially
when somebody is a prospective Witness they study these things in depth right
at the beginning and they think about the Bible's law on blood. They think about
all the Bible's laws and many Witnesses will take many months or years to study
these things in advance of putting themselves forward as a baptised Witness.
R.B. - Is that a way
of saying though that if he holds the views now, these views, he would have
to leave because they are wrong in your view?
P.G. - Well, what we
are saying is that people are free to make their own choices medically and religiously.
If they stop believing these things that they formally heard then, of course,
they are free to leave the organization. But we have no automatic sanction that
we would institute; our first priority is to give people spiritual help and
care.
R.B. - But if he thinks
blood transfusions are right and your policy is wrong, are you saying that he
should not remain in your church?
P.G. - Well, let me
use an illustration. If somebody was a member of the Temperance Society and
he decided to go out and drink a pint of beer, then they would give every evidence
that they did not want to be a member of the Temperance Society.
R.B. - The question
here I suppose is, Is there any scope for democratic debate among Jehovah Witnesses
I mean, you could argue, you know you've changed your mind on transplants, couldn't
you change your mind on blood transfusions? Shouldn't there be an open debate
among members?
P.G. - Well, we do
encourage open discussion. In fact; we encourage every family head to discuss
with his family all the various medical procedures and implications of blood
with his family so that, if a medical situation arises he's quite clear in his
own mind what various choices he has and what he can do. In our meetings too
we have open discussions. And you mentioned that what people know about Jehovah's
Witnesses is that they call from house to house. Now every single member of
Jehovah's Witnesses makes a public defence of their faith on a day to day basis
and, because this is the only thing that people know about Jehovah's Witnesses,
our stand on blood, you find that Jehovah's Witnesses are defending this issue
every day.
R.B. - Yes, but if
you are so open and so on, why does this man feel he has to be anonymous? Why
are this group of people, significant numbers as far as one can gather from
the Internet, scared of debating in public? I mean, are they deluded?
P.G. - That is a very
good question. But is he who he claims to be, a Witness?
R.B. - Well, we believe
him to be so; and it is certainly the case and there are significant numbers
of Witnesses who are communicating on the Internet anonymously about their reservations
about your policy. So I cannot understand this, on the one hand your calm rational
approach saying, "Let's discuss these things" and their fear.
P.G. - Well that is
a good question. That is something you really have to put to him. But we believe
that this is really just mischief-making by ex-Witnesses and ex-members of organisations
who do not really represent the views of 6 million people from 232 countries
who have thought about this issue and made decisions according to what they
understand the Bible to teach.
R.B. - Finally and
briefly, you have changed your mind on transplants. Is it possible you will
ever change your minds on blood transfusion?
P.G. - Well, the difference
is that the Bible does not comment on organ transplants. We have looked through
the Bible and it does not say anything about it. It is specific with regard
to blood.
When Doctor Barnard
first performed the first heart transplant operation, major religions - there
was an outcry by them about the procedures and the ethics of it. So, like everybody
else, we thought about the ethics of organ transplants and now we've settled
on a view that we feel is the right view, but it's different from blood which
has been consistent from the time of Genesis right the way through to the first
century and to today.
R.B.- Paul Gillies
thank you very much. No change on blood transfusions.
|