A Study in
How the Governing Body Feeds Their Sheep
by Alan Feuerbacher
The Watchtower Society has often been accused of sidestepping issues of fundamental importance, leaving Witnesses unprepared for charges that God is unloving or that the Society is a charlatan. Apparently the Society feels that by never discussing contrary evidence, it avoids inducing doubts in the faithful. It almost always mentions only the virtues of a position it has taken. Where a problem exists, it is only mentioned if a good argument can be given in explanation.
The Society seems to feel that only it is qualified to think seriously about fundamental religious topics, suggesting that the responsibility of the average Witness is to bring his thinking in line with whatever the Society happens to have published most recently. The February 15, 1981 Watchtower said on page 19:
A Firm Guiding Hand
The sentiments expressed here illustrate the Societys attitude about material it publishes and the way it expects Jehovahs Witnesses to view that material as adjustments in understanding.
The Society often writes articles from the point of view that it expects Witnesses to treat the material as if it came directly from God. For example, the United in Worship book asks several questions: 1
The reader is then referred to Luke 10:16, which says:
The implication is that an appreciative Witness will accept whatever spiritual provisions the Society makes, as if those provisions came directly from God.
Another example showing the Societys expectations in this regard is found in some Watchtower main study articles Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order and Each One in His Place. One paragraph says of the faithful slave: 2
Another paragraph says: 3
A third paragraph says: 4
Another Watchtower article said: 5
To reinforce statements like these,
articles often include warning examples of those who failed to submit to theocratic
order, such as the rebellion against Moses by Korah 6 or by Miriam and Aaron.7
The Society appears to believe that it is actually inspired by God.
According to Websters New Collegiate Dictionary, inspire means to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration; to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on; to spur on, impel, motivate. The above quotations from Watchtower publications make it abundantly clear that the Society feels that its activities fit this definition, although it reserves the word inspired for the Bible alone.
The Insight book, vol. 1, says on page 1204:
Note how closely this description fits the way the translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures described their work, in the foreword to the 1961 edition:
On the other hand, the Society
sometimes expresses a point of view in its publications in which it freely admits that it
is not infallible, that the writers are not inspired, and that its views on certain
matters change from time to time.8, 9, 10, 11
Through a process of searching the scriptures, a clearer understanding is reached on
certain matters, and adjustments are made.12
This searching process is illustrated in the article The Path of the Righteous Does
Keep Getting Brighter, 13
which compares the searching to the tacking of a sailboat and to the progress of
The Society explains its position in two ways. On the one hand, it says that as the faithful slave searches the scriptures, its understanding increases, 14 and this increased understanding is communicated to readers of Watchtower publications. On the other hand, it says that the increased understanding comes from Jehovah through the channel of the slave.
On the one hand readers are asked to make allowances for mistakes or misunderstandings in print, but on the other hand they are asked to treat what they are reading as if it came directly from Jehovah.
On the one hand, readers are exhorted to believe that there is a body of truth to which adjustments have been made, 15 that the adjustment process shows how Jehovahs Witnesses are lining up with Jehovahs mind as now revealed. 16 On the other hand, this body of truth is said to be adjusted by Jehovah himself, that this body of truth even constitutes Present Truth. 17
The first viewpoint is most
compelling. The Society does its best to interpret the scriptures correctly, but sometimes
makes mistakes. However, if that is the case, it is hardly fair for the Society to make
statements such as quoted in footnotes 2, 3 and 4 above.
Conforming to Scripture
One argument that attempts to justify such statements says essentially, to the extent that the Societys publications conform to Gods Word, it can be said that the faithful slave is transmitting Jehovahs thoughts to his people. But this argument requires someone to decide the degree of conformance.
Who is to decide? The only reasonable choices are either the reader or Jehovah. If the reader is to decide, the argument is meaningless because it can be restated thus: to the extent the reader decides the Societys publications conform to Gods Word,.... But if Jehovah is to decide, then the issue is still undecided from any readers point of view, since Jehovah does not tell readers of his decisions. Saying that Jehovah will make his decision known at some future time does nothing for the present question.
Another argument the Society uses to show it is Gods channel of communication goes something like this: The way Jehovah God has prospered the activities carried on under [the faithful and discreet slaves] direction can leave no doubt in the minds of dedicated Christians as to Jehovah Gods approval being upon it. 18, 30
This argument does not justify the conclusion that Jehovah makes continual adjustments to the Present Truth especially at a time in human history that the Society considers to be critical. Gods approval on an arrangement is no evidence that he directs it, in light of Romans 13:1, 2 which says regarding the present arrangement for ruling mankind:
Present Truth: The Heart
These ideas were presented in a drama at the Divine Name district assembly the following summer, and illustrated by giant, glowing, talking models of a heart and brain. Did Jehovah direct these articles to be written and did he direct the assembly dramas to be staged? Did Jehovah then change his mind and make a complete turnabout on this question in 1984 and direct that the following statements be written?
Note the sudden change from literal to figurative.
As another example of the Societys changing its collective mind, when the elder arrangement was first discussed in 1971, the Society stated that the chairmanship of the early Christians body of elders likely rotated.22 The entire arrangement was implied to be Gods doing. 23 But as the years passed, the Society found that, on the whole, things worked better when elders maintained their positions for more than one year. So the rotation arrangement was officially cancelled as of 1983.24
Why the change? Did Jehovah learn
from experience and then make this adjustment to the body of truth or
was it the Society?
Present Truth: Organ Transplants
In the November 15, 1967 Watchtower the Society declared its opposition to organ transplants. The section Questions from Readers posed the question of how Jehovahs Witnesses were to view transplants, and the Society gave its official answer: 25
The Society proceeded to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint in a series of articles in the June 8, 1968 Awake!, using almost the entire magazine to consider such topics as health, misuse of humans for medical experiments, doctors and their view of organ transplants, experimenting with transplants, and the problems of heart transplants.
The bottom line for Jehovahs Witnesses was presented on page 21, under the sub-heading, The Scriptural Aspect, which presented no scriptures. This was:
There the official view remained until the March 15, 1980 Watchtower considered the question of congregational action towards someone who accepted an organ transplant. Here are some excerpts: 26
The June 22, 1982 Awake! reiterated this position, stating:
Thus, the Societys position
changed, from the view that organ transplants are cannibalism and akin to murder, to it
being a personal decision. Considering that lives were at stake, where was the guiding
hand of God?
Inspired or Merely Well-Intentioned?
From these examples, and from many other instances where adjustments to understanding have been made, the evidence indicates that Jehovah does not directly cause any particular statements to be written in Watchtower publications nor does he cause any particular actions, such as the presentation of Bible dramas at assemblies, to be taken. He does not directly adjust Present Truth.
The publications do occasionally admit of this conclusion, but they also exhort the reader to ignore it. The Society strongly discourages readers from questioning or critically viewing the spiritual food provided by the faithful slave.
It is as if the Society expects all Witnesses to simply accept the most recently published ideas on any matter as Present Truth, and unquestioningly, unthinkingly, discard anything not in line with it.
The very expressions Present
Truth and present body of truth are oxymorons contradictions in
terms. Truth does not change and does not depend on time only understanding
changes. But the Society so strongly wants its readers to believe what it says that it
seems to use such terms in an effort to convince people that it is Gods
channel of communication.
I can only imagine the reply I would have received from the Society had I immediately written in response to the 1971 Watchtower article about the heart, saying exactly the same thing as the 1984 article did. I can especially imagine what would have happened if I had told anyone in the congregation what I thought.
Moreover, from the 1984 article I can only conclude that the Society is not particularly interested in telling its readers that it has changed its mind. The article does not explain that this was a change of understanding with respect to the ideas presented in the 1971 article. Nor does the 1980 Watchtower article on transplants mention a word about the earlier views. The 1930-1985 Watchtower Publications Index does not even list the 1967 Watchtower article. This is, in effect, changing history to suit current priorities. How many were injured or disfellowshipped because of following the leading of men?
What about the Societys major failed predictions? A great many things, including Armageddon and the bringing of the faithful to heaven, were predicted for 1914, but the Society now only claims that one was fulfilled, i.e., the end of the Gentile Times arrived an invisible event. Armageddon was again predicted for 1925, but that also fell through.
By the time the Society made near predictions for the year 1975, it had learned from its earlier mistakes, so that it avoided directly stating that 1975 would bring Armageddon. Were these things evidence of the hand of God?
I certainly accept that, to be one
of Jehovahs Witnesses, one must conform to certain standards, but given its track
record, it seems presumptuous for the Society to view its ideas in the same manner as
Israelites were required to view Moses directions. After all, who in the Governing
Body or the faithful slave speaks to Jehovah face to face?
The Basis for Authority
The Governing Body claims that as a body it was commissioned by God, and that its members are appointed by holy spirit. In concrete terms, however, the members of the Governing Body of Jehovahs Witnesses can only trace their appointment back to Charles Russell 28 in the late 1800s.
The article A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation, under the sub-title How the Governing Body Came to Exist, 29 manages to avoid being specific about its theme and the point just raised, by using terms such as evidently, patently, according to the facts available, facts speak louder than words, the facts speak for themselves, holy spirit must have been operative, there came on the scene, and a governing body made its appearance. Nowhere does the article show why things are evident, refer the reader to what facts it is talking about, or say anything that could possibly be pinned down.
The article certainly does not
answer the question as to how the very first appointments to responsibility were made in
the late 1800s. It simply states that certain things are so, and implies that all loyal
Witnesses of Jehovah must accept these things.
The Effect on the Rank-and-File Member
All these words about remaining loyal, not questioning, appreciatively accepting spiritual provisions, and the like, may well have a good purpose, but they also have a negative effect: it is nearly impossible to discuss a point of difficulty with most Jehovahs Witnesses, because the moment a Witness suspects that someone is not toeing the party line he becomes defensive and closed-minded. This includes elders and circuit overseers, but is especially true of run-of-the-mill Witnesses.
The net effect is that it is nearly
impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a Witness on any subject which he suspects
might not conform completely to the body of present truth. The only outlet is
to write to the Society. That is not always possible, and the Society usually does not
I would certainly appreciate a clear response on the issues Ive raised above. They can be condensed to three conclusions:
back to Psychology
back to Main Page