Alan Feuerbacher

[From the Editors: this content is not strictly about JW doctrine, but includes questions about Bible belief in general. We do not recommend it for those who come to this site for information about how JWs differ in doctrine from other Christian-oriented religions. It questions the Bible, and therefore Christianity, in general. To some extent it is also related to the JW claim of being the “faithful slave” and “God’s only channel of communication” in our day. Most links within this article refer back to corior.blogspot.com]

Overview:

• How Did Mankind Become Inherently Sinful?
• Is the Ransom Sacrifice a Reasonable Idea?
• Did Adam Try to Become Independent of God?
• God’s Love, Justice and Mercy

The fundamental doctrine of the Bible is that Jehovah is the creator of the universe and he is to be worshipped for his superlative qualities. These include love, justice and mercy. A major requirement of those who want to worship God is faith. The Reasoning From The Scriptures book says concerning faith:¹

Definition: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Heb. 11:1) True faith is not credulity, that is, a readiness to believe something without sound evidence or just because a person wants it to be so. Genuine faith requires basic or fundamental knowledge, acquaintance with evidence, as well as heartfelt appreciation of what that evidence indicates. Thus, although it is impossible to have real faith without accurate knowledge, the Bible says that it is “with the heart” that one exercises faith. — Rom. 10:10.

One of the faculties God has given to man is intelligence and the ability to reason. It is clear the Bible expects a believer to use these faculties to observe what God has done so as to establish faith in him. A person would be foolish not to scrutinize evidence that came before him, as regards his faith. If one does not understand the basis for one’s faith, how can one in good conscience teach it to others? This is the point of the argument the Society uses concerning the integrity of all God’s creatures, as discussed on page 54 of the Life Does Have a Purpose book:²

The rebellion of the earthly son of God raised the question: Would anyone within God’s earthly family, using his free will, choose to be loyal to God’s rulership….?

Of course, one cannot exercise free will apart from using one’s intelligence.

The second most important doctrine is the ransom sacrifice. This doctrine depends on the notions of sin and imperfection. The ransom sacrifice is often stated to be the primary example of God exercising love, justice and mercy toward mankind.

The Bible and the Society indicate that Adam sinned and became imperfect, thereby becoming needful of God’s help, which God provided through the ransom sacrifice. However, there is a major gap in the chain of reasoning that leads from Adam’s original act of sin, through his offspring’s inheriting physical imperfection and sin, which is the inability to always do what God expects, to the need for a ransom sacrifice to relieve mankind from its burden. The balance of this discussion shows where this gap is, and points out the implications.

A basic summary of these doctrines, based on the Society’s publications, is as follows:

1. Adam was created perfect.

2. God gave Adam a reasonable test of his devotion and obedience — to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

3. Adam deliberately disobeyed God and ate from the tree.

4. God therefore sentenced Adam to death.

5. Adam became imperfect due to his sin and passed that imperfection on to all mankind, his children.

6. Due to the sinful state it inherited from Adam, all mankind is in need of help from outside its own ranks to get back into God’s good graces and regain perfection.

7. God himself provided that outside help, in the form of the ransom sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ.

8. Christ’s sacrifice was a means of canceling out what Adam lost, by providing like for like: a perfect human life was lost and a perfect human life was used to buy it back.

9. The ransom sacrifice provided by God is the ultimate example of God’s absolute standards of justice.

10. Adam’s rebellion raised serious moral questions about man’s ability to keep integrity to God, and raised the more serious question of the rightfulness of God’s rulership.

All this sounds reasonable until one looks closely at three key points. How did Adam’s act of sin turn into the inherent sinfulness that became part of his genetic makeup and was therefore passed on to his offspring? Is it truly reasonable that the death of a perfect human could cancel out the effects of Adam’s sin? Did Adam really try to become independent of God? We will now examine these points in detail.

How Did Mankind Become Inherently Sinful?

I’ve discussed this question with several elders over the years and have not found a satisfactory answer. A letter I wrote to the Society about twenty years ago expressed my misgivings about the doctrine of the ransom sacrifice, but the issues were not as clear to me then as they are now. I discussed this question with two circuit overseers in the late 1980s. They both gave similar answers: the question as to how mankind became inherently sinful is not understood by the Society — in their words, it is a mystery. At first I was extremely surprised to hear this, because I had never seen any published information stating such a thing. But the more I thought about it, the more reasonable the idea seemed. I finally found a statement in an Awake! article, that came fairly close to admitting the Society does not know how mankind became inherently sinful. The October 8, 1988 Awake! article “Wonderfully Made to Live, Not Die” said:³

Sadly, the first man and woman rebelled and ate the forbidden fruit. Being a God of truth, their Creator was impelled to keep his word, and thus he sentenced them to death. The Bible does not contain the biologic details of how God did this. [italics added] What we do know, however, is that Adam and Eve passed on their sinful state to their offspring. As the Bible explains: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” — Romans 5:12.

The problem, of course, is that the Bible does not explain this most fundamental of doctrines, but rather, states it as a given. It does not explain how mankind came to be inherently sinful, in a manner that is understandable to those who would have faith based on accurate knowledge. This means there is no basis for saying one understands the working of God’s absolute justice in this matter. The best that can be said is one accepts on faith what the Bible says — and that God is exercising absolute justice. This means the ransom sacrifice cannot logically be used as an example showing God’s justice and mercy toward mankind. But the Society uses this example all the time.

The idea that mankind will be healed of its deficiencies in the new system is based on the concept of inherited sin. That the Society considers this a key point can be seen from the following statement on page 174 of Life Does Have a Purpose:⁴

…. in the new system of things Christ will administer the full benefit of His sacrifice so that the inherited weaknesses, the genetic “misinformation” received from a person’s ancestors, will be corrected.

The lack of a clear and full explanation of these doctrines leads me to make two claims: (1) God should make the second most fundamental doctrine of the Bible understandable to his intelligent creatures so they may say they understand why they ought to worship him. (2) God’s “channel of communication” should clearly explain what is understood completely, and what must be accepted purely as a matter of faith. The Society never explicitly states it does not understand how mankind came to be inherently sinful, but invariably uses language that avoids the need for such explanation. This has often left me wondering if I was stupid for not being able to follow the argument. Every Witness I’ve ever talked to, except the two circuit overseers I mentioned, thinks he and the Society understand the ransom doctrine. I will now fully explain how I arrived at these conclusions, using references from the Bible and from the Society’s publications.

A fairly typical explanation, which comes closer to the heart of the problem than most, but not nearly so straightforwardly as the aforementioned October 8, 1988 Awake! quotation, is from “Questions From Readers” in the August 1, 1988 Watchtower:⁵

Our common ancestor Adam burdened all his descendants with sin. Adam had been created perfect, sinless…. When he disobeyed Jehovah’s basic instructions, Adam became imperfect. To sin means basically “to miss the mark.” Adam truly did that. So by violating God’s command, Adam became a sinner.

All of us have been affected because all of us came from Adam. You could illustrate it this way: A man who was born with a dominant genetic defect would pass it on to all his offspring; they would inherit the same defect. Modern scientists can determine whether certain chromosomal defects exist in an embryo of a newborn, but Jehovah goes beyond that. He reveals that a grave defect did come to exist in Adam and that it has been passed on to all of us. This defect is sin. “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”…. This sinful state has put humans out of harmony with the Creator, in addition to bringing upon them sickness and death.

This explanation is a good example of the reasoning the Society usually uses to avoid having to explain its imperfect understanding of inherent sinfulness. It comes closer to the heart of the issue than most because it mentions a genetic basis for passing on inherent sinfulness. But it obscures a critical link in the chain of events. Note how the writer uses⁶ the passive voice, “a defect came to exist in Adam,” avoiding the necessity of explaining how the “grave defect came to exist” in Adam. Adam wasn’t created with any defect, as he “had been created perfect, sinless.” The illustration is thus misleading — Adam did not come into existence with any sort of “dominant genetic defect.” So a clearly evident event — “by violating God’s command, Adam became a sinner,” — is not shown to be connected with the crucial event that Adam’s genetic makeup was changed so that he was thereafter not just a sinner, but inherently sinful. Thus it is not shown how Adam’s offspring came to be inherently sinful. The Bible is clear and forthright in simply stating without explanation that this is so. The Society gives the impression it understands the events.

In the course of my research I’ve come to realize there is some confusion among the Society’s writers about the terms “imperfection” and “sinfulness.” Some writers use the terms interchangeably, but this is incorrect.

According to the Insight book,⁷ under the subheading “Perfection,” the basic idea of perfection is completeness. All notion of perfection, except in the case of God, is relative. To borrow a phrase, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. God is the ultimate beholder. Sin, on the other hand, is “missing the mark,” or any action contrary to God’s will, according to the Insight book, Vol. 2, under the subheading “Sin.” The original Hebrew words translated as “perfect” and “sin” are different. Clearly the terms are related but mean different things. A creature such as Adam, whom God views as perfect in a stringent sense, can become a sinner by an act of sin. Likewise a creature whom God might view as perfect in a less stringent sense, such as any human today, is expected to be “perfect as [his] heavenly Father is perfect.” The Bible speaks of different standards of perfection, but only one standard of sinlessness. So it is improper to talk about perfection without first making it clear what the standard is. This view is further confirmed by the discussions on page 151 of the March 1, 1974 Watchtower and pages 497-500 of the August 15, 1971 Watchtower. Also, the term “perfect,” with respect to man’s physical makeup, is rarely used in the New World Translation.⁸Only in James 3:2 and (possibly) Hebrews 7:11 is it used in this sense. All other uses of “perfect” and words derived from it are with respect to God or Jesus, or imply relative perfection, or are unrelated to a person. The term “imperfect” is not found. So using the two terms interchangeably is not correct. Sinlessness implies an absolute standard and perfection a relative one.

Now let’s look at a few examples of how the Society usually explains how mankind became inherently sinful. The October 15, 1989 Watchtower said on pages 4-5:

Testing Adam’s obedience, God there commanded him not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. If he and Eve ate of the fruit, God said, they would “positively die.”…. they disobeyed God and failed in that crucial test. Death resulted…. They were no longer perfect, and God passed sentence of death. Yet, God has arranged for that just sentence to be reversed for descendants of Adam.

Note how seamlessly the writer has mankind passing from perfection to imperfection, and then to needing the death sentence to be reversed. He touches none of the above points. The writer uses the passive voice, “death resulted,” to avoid explaining how death resulted and who caused it.

The September 15, 1989 Watchtower said on pages 4-5, after quoting Romans 5:12:

Why did Adam’s sin cause death to spread to all men? Really, this was because of the natural outworking of things.

When Adam sinned, he was condemned to death in accord with divine law. This was both just and necessary. It was just, for life is not a right but a gift from God. By sinning deliberately, Adam forfeited all claim to that gift…. Adam’s condemnation to death was necessary because nothing imperfect can be permitted to survive and pollute the universe indefinitely. Thus, when Adam sinned, he began to die and no longer possessed perfect, sinless life to hand on to his children as an inheritance. He could only give them life tainted with imperfection and sin.

This paragraph contains several unstated assumptions and inaccuracies. For example, it contradicts itself when it says, “life is a gift from God,” and then says Adam could not pass on perfect life to his offspring, because if life was a gift from God, then the question of Adam’s passing it on is irrelevant — he couldn’t even if he had it. The paragraph also says Adam “began to die.” Why did he begin to die? Because God pronounced a death sentence upon him. How did this become part of his genetic makeup, so that it could be passed on to his children? The paragraph does not say. Not one of the key issues I’ve pointed out is touched upon.

The writer appears thoroughly confused about the notion of inheritance. Legal inheritance is one thing, and genetic inheritance is another. No one can bequeath property to his offspring if he does not own it. But genetic makeup is not property, and because of the way genetic inheritance works one may pass on what one does not “possess.” A father may have no limbs; his offspring will not be limbless. A man may give his sperm to a sperm bank and then die; he no longer possesses even life itself, but his sperm can still produce completely healthy offspring. Thus, we may say a man can pass on to his offspring what he does not possess, if we are not too precise about what we mean by “possess.” But with serious matters such as we have here, one should be precise. One should not become confused or play word games with the type of inheritance one is considering. But the Society always misses this point, and does not seem to know that since life is a gift from God, no one can pass it on. At least, not in the sense the Bible is talking about.

The August 1, 1989 Watchtower said on page 26, concerning inherited sin:

Would Adam’s children be able to keep God’s law perfectly, as he himself in his human perfection had once been able to do? By the operation of the laws of heredity, would he not transmit to his children his weakness and tendency to disobey God’s voice and listen to some other voice? Factual history supplies the answers to these questions.

Again nothing is said about how Adam went from his original perfection to weakness and a tendency to disobey God’s voice. The writer simply ignores the issue.

The book Reasoning from the Scriptures⁹ was written to help people to “reason from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references” various points, in order to help “others to understand the Bible.” But it too, never touches the issue of how mankind became inherently sinful. On page 372 it says:

How could such perfect humans become selfish, leading to acts of sin? Although created perfect, their physical bodies would not continue to function perfectly if not provided with proper food. So, too, if they let the mind feed on wrong thoughts, this would cause moral deterioration, unholiness…. Instead of rejecting…. wrong thoughts, [Adam and Eve] nourished selfish desires. Acts of sin resulted.

Not a word is said here about inherited sin, and how it resulted from “acts of sin.” Where is the “reasoning,” and how is “understanding” being imparted to believers?

The Insight book, under the subheading “Adam,” tries to explain matters in a similar way on page 45:¹⁰

With full knowledge Adam willfully and deliberately chose to disobey and then as a criminal he tried to hide…. So Adam was cast out of Eden…. Outside the garden, awaiting death, Adam fathered sons and daughters…. To all of his children Adam passed on hereditary sin and death, since he himself was sinful.

Again it is not explained how an act of sin, which made Adam sinful in a moral sense, became the inherent sinfulness that implies a change in Adam’s genetic makeup.

On page 307 the Reasoning book brings up other pertinent issues:

Why did God not simply decree that, although Adam and Eve must die for their rebellion, all of their offspring who would obey God could live forever?

Because Jehovah is “a lover of righteousness and justice.” So, the way he dealt with the situation upheld his righteousness, met the demands of absolute justice, and, at the same time, magnified his love and mercy. How is that so?

(1) Adam and Eve had produced no children before they sinned, so none were born perfect.

Note the free interchange of the concepts of “perfection” and “sinlessness.” This avoids the necessity of explaining issues such as I’ve raised.

All of Adam’s offspring were brought forth in sin, and sin leads to death. If Jehovah had simply ignored this, that would have been a denial of his own righteous standards. God could not do that and so become a party to unrighteousness. He did not sidestep the requirements of absolute justice; so no intelligent creature could ever legitimately find fault in this respect….

This excerpt raises another point: God’s absolute standards of justice are invoked but are not defined. It seems to be assumed the reader already knows that God, as creator, establishes the standards of justice. Whatever he says is “justice” is by definition justice. Therefore it is useless to say that God conforms to any standards of justice — otherwise one would have to say there are standards of justice apart from God, and if one makes such claims then one cannot claim God is the ultimate standard. So saying God “did not sidestep the requirements of absolute justice, so no intelligent creature could ever legitimately find fault in this respect” is a tautology and therefore nearly meaningless. Saying God is “just” is the same as saying God does whatever he wants, which because he is the creator, we already know he does and has the absolute right to do. But whatever God wants is, by definition, just. The circular reasoning should be obvious. The only way the statement can be taken to have any information content is to claim mankind has an inbuilt sense of justice, and that he is able to use it to see and understand God’s standards rather than blindly accepting without question that God is just. But this point is not addressed.

Another explanation in which the key issues are unclear appears in True Peace and Security — How Can You Find It?, page 49:¹¹

Eve allowed herself to be drawn along by selfish desire. She ate what God had forbidden. Afterward, under her urging, her husband Adam also ate. He chose to cast his lot with her rather than with his Creator…. What was the outcome?

The entire human family was plunged into sin and imperfection. Now Adam and Eve could not pass on to their offspring the perfection that they once had. Just as copies produced from a defective pattern all have the same defect, so all of their offspring were born in sin, with an inherited tendency toward selfishness.

Note again, how the writer uses the passive voice in saying the “human family was plunged….”, and freely interchanges “sin” and “imperfection.”

The November 1, 1980 Watchtower explained things this way, on page 7:

…. many things cause us to sin, but especially does the weakness of our own flesh.

Why should this be? It is a matter of inheritance. Originally, our first parents, Adam and Eve, did not have this problem. They were perfect and could make balanced, reasonable decisions as to sin. But they made a wrong choice, decided to rebel against God, and, hence, fell from perfection to imperfection. Because of this, they left to all their children a legacy of sinful, wrong tendencies. The apostle Paul explained it this way: “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

This does not address how Adam and Eve’s making a wrong choice and rebelling against God resulted in their becoming thereafter incapable of always making right choices, or how this inability became incorporated into their genes. It is left to the clear statement of the Bible that it is so. That the Bible does not explain the connection is not addressed.

The book Is This Life All There Is? puts a slightly different twist to matters. On pages 34-35 it says:¹²

By their rebellion against God, Adam and Eve cut themselves off from a good relationship with [God]. They did not possess an indestructible, immortal life…. They were dependent upon God for continued life.

By refusing to submit to God’s law, Adam and Eve deprived themselves of his sustaining power. Moreover, alienated from God, they were without his divine direction and guidance. In time, then, the sin that had alienated Adam and Eve from God brought about their death…. God sentenced Adam to death….

Through his disobedience, Adam, as the progenitor of the human family, brought death, not only to himself, but also to his unborn offspring…. Having forfeited perfection, Adam could not pass it on to his offspring…. The outworkings of sin in his body made it impossible for him to father offspring without limitations and weaknesses.

This explanation of inherited sin again misses the key points, and does not show clear reasoning. It does not even refer to how a bad relationship with God, and being cut off from his sustaining power, turned into an inherited incapability to always do what is right. It again mistakes the gift of life from God as something that can be passed on through the genes.

The final example of an explanation of inherited sin is from Life Does Have a Purpose.¹³ This will be an extended example, so that I can fully comment on a number of issues related to the ransom sacrifice doctrine, and God’s love, justice and mercy. The book contains one of the most detailed attempts the Society has made to address some of these issues. Chapter 5, “Why Has God Allowed Suffering on Earth?” says on page 48:

…. Adam and his wife, Eve, were created perfect, as are all God’s works…. How, then, did imperfection and its accompanying troubles, sickness and strife, come to be the lot of the human race? The Bible explains¹⁴ that, through no fault of their own, all humans since Adam and Eve have been born with imperfections¹⁵. It declares: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”….

According to the laws of genetics, children inherit tendencies and characteristics, as well as defects, from their parents. But how did perfect Adam become defective, imperfect, a sinner?….

The book relates how Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed God’s prohibition not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Skipping to paragraph 13 on page 60, we find:

Adam thereby became a sinner.

This is clear enough. An act of sin, by definition, makes someone a sinner. But how does this become inherited sin? Paragraph 13 continues:

According to the meaning of the Hebrew word for “sin” he ‘missed the mark.’ He could no longer measure up to perfect standards.

God defines the standards, and since Adam violated them, God could declare that Adam was morally imperfect.

He died spiritually and also began to die physically in that day.

The notion of dying “spiritually” is really a rhetorical device to say the same thing as has already been said — Adam was no longer morally perfect in God’s sight and God would no longer have dealings with him. The issue I’m emphasizing here, though, is: Why did Adam begin to die physically that day?

Adam now had a lack, a moral weakness that also affected him physically, for “the sting producing death is sin.”….

A mental disturbance can produce physical illness, but a person’s moral status is defined by how God views him. A change in God’s viewpoint alone cannot change a person, but a direct action on God’s part, as a result of that changed viewpoint, will. The writer also implies that Adam’s death came about, not as a result of God’s pronouncing the death sentence upon him, but automatically, as a result of the act of sin, as if there were some built-in mechanism that caused Adam to die with no action¹⁶ on God’s part. The writer entirely misses these points.

Adam’s spirituality being ruined, his mental workings were unbalanced,

Certainly he was upset, but why would his mental workings become “unbalanced,” whatever that means?

and this contributed toward unbalance and deterioration of his physical body.

Another link in the chain of logic is missed. How did Adam’s spiritual condition affect his physical condition? The writer is clearly aware he does not understand what he is writing about, as he has lapsed into generalities disguised in vague rhetoric.

Adam had to die….

Yes, as a result of God’s sentence. But the writer ignores this, obscuring the point and assuming the reader will in some vague manner figure out the impending death is a result of something that has been somehow incorporated into Adam’s genes. Most readers who are able to realize they do not understand what was said will just chalk it up to their own stupidity. I did for years.

He could not pass on full strength morally or physically to his children, for he no longer had it to give.

Whatever the writer means by Adam’s “moral strength,” it would appear he lost it as a result of an act of sin, and God’s thereafter viewing of him as morally imperfect. Where has it been shown how he lost physical strength, and how these losses became incorporated into his genes?

Consequently, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” which Adam had once reflected in his perfection.

This merely goes back to the scriptural declaration (not explanation) again.

Being a sinner, Adam had no right to enjoy communion with Jehovah God….

What did all of this mean for the human race? The result was inherited weakness.

This, of course, has not been shown by a continuous chain of logic. The writer arrives at this conclusion only after a most tortuous circumlocution of logic and ignoring of facts. What are the facts he has ignored?

Acquired characteristics are not inherited — otherwise the Lamarckian mechanism of evolution would be true. A man will pass on to his offspring all the characteristics he was born with, even if he no longer has them, so long as his genes are intact. If Adam’s genes had changed it could only be because God himself changed them by direct action. It does no good to argue that God designed man so that if he disobeyed him, his genes would automatically be changed in accordance with his “moral imperfection” — God would still be the designer of the mechanism that changed the genes. Then God could be accused of “booby-trapping” mankind, in a sense. If this is the way God actually built mankind, then all the statements the Bible and the Society have made with respect to man’s free will are meaningless.

The Society occasionally seems to allude to the idea that God sentenced Adam to death by means of changing his physical and genetic makeup. This has dire consequences of which the Society seems aware and studiously avoids: by direct action God himself would have made mankind inherently sinful. Why would God do this? Why would God make it impossible for Adam’s offspring to always do what is right? This is clearly unjust and contradictory to God’s purpose of having righteous men on earth.

These ideas are supported by the fact that since inheritance can be either legal or genetic, the one is fundamentally different from the other. If Adam no longer had the capability to do what is right, so that he passed the lack on to his offspring, but he had the capability when he was initially created, then something must have removed that capability by changing his genetic makeup. The only logical means is that God himself made the changes. How else could it have been done? The mere act of eating a piece of fruit certainly could not have. Adam’s realization that he was now estranged from God could not have, otherwise you’re back to the booby-trap. This is the key to my argument: What, other than God’s direct action, could have changed Adam’s genes? And if God did this, he is directly responsible for mankind’s inherent sinfulness and all its effects.

Based on the foregoing, I see no other conclusion than that God took away Adam’s physical perfection when he became morally imperfect in his sight, and then changed his genes to match. As to why that included making Adam and his offspring inherently incapable of obeying him, I can come to no conclusion.

This view is further strengthened by God’s words to Eve in Genesis 3:16:

“I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”

The Society usually says this scripture merely states what would happen, not what should happen as regards pregnancy and the relationship between men and women. Such claims notwithstanding, God’s direct and forthright statement “I shall do thus and so….,” clearly indicates direct action¹⁷ by him. There is no way a gradual deterioration in physical state or in the marital relations between Adam and Eve could account for the immediate effect on Eve of greatly increased pain of her pregnancy. And from where else could such a change come, other than God’s direct action in changing both her current physical makeup and her genes?

The March 1, 1976 Watchtower said on page 159 regarding this:

It does not appear that Jehovah directly brought these conditions into existence as a punishment on Eve and, by inheritance, on all her daughter descendants. Rather, by cutting off the woman as well as the man from divine favor, Jehovah was pointing to the consequences and abuses that would result. Childbearing would be very difficult under imperfect conditions.

As usual the writer speaks in sweeping generalities. He does not say why it does not appear Jehovah did these things, he only assumes it. Nor does he explain how cutting off the woman from divine favor would cause immediate difficulty in childbearing. Does this mean that God originally designed women so they could not give birth easily without his direct intervention? And that this was to be the normal way of giving birth, i.e., with God’s intervention, for all time? This is unreasonable. God, as a master designer, would design women to easily give birth on their own, just as all other life does. If you want to push this point, then you must also explain why it is the Society claims that even though all animal life was severely affected by mankind’s fall, to such an extent that many animals became carnivorous after having been designed to be vegetarians, they still give birth with far greater ease than mankind. In either case, whether Jehovah directly changed Eve, or indirectly caused her and all her female descendants’ suffering by refusing to help them give birth, it is still his action that greatly increased the pain of pregnancy.

Similarly the Insight book says on page 186 about Genesis 3:16:¹⁸

God expressed to the first woman, Eve, after she had sinned, what the result would be as to childbearing…. But now, as a general rule, the imperfect functioning of the body would bring pain. Accordingly, God said (as often the things that he permits are said to be done by him): “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy….”

But this is again not explained. It is, rather, stated as a conclusion, to avoid ascribing to God actions that are unpleasant to contemplate.

There are other issues related to how man came to be sinful. The Life Does Have a Purpose book says on page 53:¹⁹

So man went in a way independent of God…. Moreover, there was more to the issue than the mere rebellion of Adam and his wife. The rebellion of the earthly son of God raised the question: Would anyone within God’s earthly family, using his free will, choose to be loyal to God’s rulership, and would any stay loyal to God under pressure, or under the temptation of gaining something for himself by disobedience? So the integrity, the faithfulness, of every man and woman to be brought into existence would be a matter of doubt in the minds of all God’s creatures in heaven and on earth.

Perhaps God wanted to add to man the burden of inherent incapability to keep his laws, as well as other burdens, to really test out this issue. This is not so far fetched. Remember, God said to Adam, “cursed is the ground on your account,” and the curse was not lifted until after the Flood. Why would God curse the ground except to give Adam a hard time? A related problem is seen in the natural disasters that overtake men. Of course, God does not cause rivers to overflow their banks, volcanoes to erupt, or earthquakes to occur. But by creating a world in which these things do occur, and, as the Bible and the Society intimate, allowing them to happen to man by refusing to prevent them, God adds to his burden.

This is a problem many argue is clear proof there is no God. Earthquakes, for example, occur as a consequence of forces deep within the earth that cause the movement of tectonic plates that cover the earth. Earthquakes kill people, and it is clear that a loving God would not make the world his creatures inhabit in such a way that it would be destructive to them. Now, there are only a few choices as to why and how long earthquakes have existed. If they have existed since the world’s creation, then God must have had in mind to someday ease their effects so they would not kill people. If they have not existed since the world’s creation, God must have started them up sometime later. Arguments about man’s fall into sin would put that startup time coincident with the fall. Another alternative is that earthquakes have existed since the world’s beginning, and God eased their effects in the vicinity of Adam, but no longer did so after the fall. But do not these alternatives lead to serious problems with the idea of a loving God? Do you have any better alternatives?

At any rate, Life Does Have a Purpose continues:

This question was, however, subsidiary or secondary to a far greater one — a challenge regarding the rightfulness of God’s sovereignty or rulership…. An illustration of the issue involved is found in what happened in real life to the man Job, a record of which was preserved for our benefit….

God let Job be tested, knowing that he would remain faithful. And Job did not actually lose by suffering for a while. For, at the end of the test, God rewarded Job beyond anything he had formerly enjoyed, including 140 more years of life….

The story of Job recounts one of the worst abuses of human rights and feelings one could possibly imagine. The Society does its best to avoid mentioning this, since at all costs, one must say God is just. But think about what the above paragraph left out. Job’s entire first family of ten children was allowed to be murdered, to satisfy someone’s challenge to God. The writer claims that Job did not actually lose anything. If all ten of your children were murdered, would you think that you had not actually lost anything? Do you think of your children merely as property — one is as good as another? That was a common attitude in the days of the patriarchs, but it is incompatible with Jesus’ teachings. And what would the children and all the others that were murdered think of what God permitted? Do you think for one minute they would agree they didn’t lose anything? I can’t believe they would. Life Does Have a Purpose doesn’t mention any of this. I really think one has to abandon all feelings of mercy and compassion to believe what the book is saying.

If someone told me I was bad, and I let my daughter be tortured fiendishly to prove I wasn’t, then virtually everyone would condemn me as a wicked father and I would have proved that I was bad. What of God, and Job’s test? What of God and all mankind? Are intelligent, feeling humans mere pawns in a cosmic chess game? I cannot help but conclude that if the story of Job is true, then as flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. [Shakespeare: King Lear IV.i.]

Life Does Have a Purpose says on page 61:

Happily, because of God’s undeserved kindness and his love for the human race, he did not abandon mankind so that they would go permanently into extinction.

Given everything I’ve discussed, I cannot see God’s love in the matter. In addition, it was God’s expressly stated purpose to populate the earth with humans. Sticking to his purpose in spite of difficulty can hardly be construed as an example of his being loving, especially in view of the way he appears to have gone about it. The appearance of being loving can be construed as merely a side effect of God’s sticking to his purpose, and would then mean no more than if his purpose was to populate the earth with bacteria.

The idea that mankind inherited sin from Adam is inconsistent with the admirable principle stated in Ezekiel 18:20:

A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father, and a father himself will bear nothing because of the error of the son. Upon his own self the very righteousness of the righteous one will come to be, and upon his own self the very wickedness of a wicked one will come to be.

Moses and Aaron showed they recognized this principle when God said he was about to kill the entire nation of Israel, in Numbers 16:22:

O God, the God of the spirits of every sort of flesh, will just one man sin and you become indignant against the entire assembly?

Did God really mean to kill all the Israelites, or was he just toying with Moses and Aaron, to see what they would say?

One final point on this subject. The Life Does Have a Purpose book further says on page 62:

If God had put Adam and Eve to death immediately, none of us who have lived on earth would ever have been born.

So what? If God populated the earth in some other way — one that did not involve all kinds of suffering — there would be no problem. Potential descendants are not something anyone need worry about. Otherwise you have to ask, What about the potential descendents that didn’t come into being because God chose to do things the way he did, rather than some other way? Are we more valuable than they? You can see Life Does Have a Purpose presents a meaningless argument.

Is the Ransom Sacrifice a Reasonable Idea?

Inevitably tied up with the issue of man’s sinfulness is the question of how he might get out of that sinful state. The Bible declares that God’s provision for this is the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I am not arguing about what the Bible says concerning the ransom doctrine, as it could hardly state the matter more clearly. The ransom doctrine is declared as an accomplished fact. What I am saying is that I do not understand it, and the Bible does not provide much help. Nor does the Society understand it, although it certainly gives the appearance it does.

The Look! I Am Making All Things New brochure sums up a few of the main points about the ransom on pages 18-19:²⁰

…. how could man be released from the bonds of death? Jehovah’s perfect justice required ‘soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’…. Hence, since Adam brought inherited death to all mankind by willfully disobeying God and so losing perfection of human life, another perfect human had to substitute for Adam in paying over his perfect life, to buy back what Adam had lost.

The just principle of paying ‘like for like’ has been widely accepted throughout history. The expression commonly used is “paying a ransom.” It is “a price paid to recover a person or thing from one who detains that person or thing in captivity. Hence prisoners of war or slaves are said to be ransomed when they are liberated in exchange for a valuable consideration…. Whatever is substituted or exchanged in compensation for the party is his ransom.” Since Adam’s sin, all mankind have been like prisoners of war or slaves, bound by imperfection and death. To release them, a ransom had to be provided. To avoid any controversy now or later as to the fairness of the ransom price, it would be necessary to sacrifice one perfect human life, that is, the exact equivalent of Adam.

I am very uncomfortable with this explanation, as it does not address many key issues. For one thing, it carefully avoids being specific about who will receive the ransom price. The writer tries to make it seem as if “imperfection and death” are the things holding mankind ransom, but this is mere sophistry. Sentient beings hold other sentient beings for ransom — immaterial concepts do not. One should not confuse rhetorical device with reality. A price is paid to an entity, such as a person or an organization. People who hold other people for ransom are called kidnappers. The brochure obviously would not raise issues such as this and such as I am about to, because of the inexperienced audience for whom it was written.

A second major problem with this explanation is that it plays fast and loose with the idea of “like for like.” This principle cannot be invoked without at least some qualifying explanation. The doctrine of the ransom sacrifice requires much.

The March 1, 1989 Watchtower is not so obscure as the Look! brochure about who receives the ransom price. It says on page 22:

God’s perfect law given to the nation of Israel stated: “Soul will be for soul.”…. Hence, after Jesus laid down his perfect life in death and was resurrected by God’s power to ascend back to heaven, he was in a position to present the value of his perfect human life to Jehovah in exchange for Adam’s life rights.

Clearly Jesus was to pay the ransom price to God in heaven and receive Adam’s life rights in turn from God, and so God is the one holding mankind captive. This is born out by Matthew 20:28 which says:

The Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.

This is further indicated by scriptures that say Christ is a repurchaser of mankind. He must repurchase mankind from the one who holds their value, namely, God.

This is an important point: an immaterial concept such as sin cannot hold anyone for ransom. Saying it can is nothing but a rhetorical device. Illustrations based on rhetorical devices must be viewed with suspicion, and can almost never be used as logical proof.

There is a general lack of understanding in the Society’s publications of this point. For example, Life Does Have a Purpose²¹ said on page 52 that Adam sold his offspring into slavery to sin and death. This is based on Romans 7:14 which says:

For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am fleshly, sold under sin.

All this really means is that mankind is inherently sinful. The term “sold under sin” is a descriptive device. There is not any selling involved. The idea is merely a way of viewing the situation. Life Does Have a Purpose elaborates this idea on page 67:

Adam had sold his future offspring, without their consent, into slavery to sin and death. The price he received for the “sale” was the selfish doing of what he wanted to do, stepping out in rebellion against God.

A somewhat similar explanation is found in the Insight book on page 735:²²

Mankind’s need for a ransom came about through the rebellion in Eden. Adam sold himself to do evil for the selfish pleasure of keeping continued company with his wife…. He thereby sold himself and his descendants into slavery to sin and to death, the price that God’s justice required.

This appears to be saying that Adam sold himself to “sin and death,” and received as a price “the pleasure of keeping continued company with his wife.” This is thoroughly confusing. Whenever selling occurs there must be a real buyer and a real seller, and something of value must change hands. If Adam received a price, then someone must have paid it. Who would that have been? Clearly the symbolism is breaking down, which points to the fact that we should be talking about concrete actions on the part of specific persons.

As to the statement that “giving like for like” is the legal basis for the ransom, the Insight book says under the subject “Atonement:”²³

Man is in need of sin covering, or atonement, due to inherited sin…., responsibility for which rests, not with God, but with man himself.

According to the conclusion I reached earlier, that only God could have changed Adam’s genes so that his descendants would inherit sin, so that it must have been by God’s direct action and is therefore God’s responsibility that mankind has inherited sin, I cannot agree with that statement. God could have carried out the death sentence on Adam in any number of ways, and it has not been shown why his changing Adam’s genes is the only way or even the best way it could have been done. The Society simply takes the Bible’s statement that this is the way it is, and then tries to justify what the Bible says. But this leaves no basis for saying that one understands God’s doings, only that one accepts them. This is fine as far as it goes, but one cannot subsequently use this uncomprehended doctrine to prove God’s love, absolute justice and mercy toward mankind. And God’s “channel of communication” should explain these matters clearly.

Moreover, the choice the Bible says God made, that only a perfect human sacrifice could cancel out the effects of Adam’s sin, is arbitrary. The principle of “like for like” cannot be blindly applied, or ridiculous situations will occur. For example, if a man commits suicide, how would the principle be applied? Would someone else have to die, because God’s justice demands “soul for soul?” Of course not. The principle must be applied with discretion.

The idea of arbitrariness is further seen by examining the Israelite laws concerning sin and atonement, where animal sacrifices were required for the Jews to continue to have the acceptance and approval of God. There is no reason any number of other things couldn’t have been done to maintain God’s approval. The only reason animal sacrifices were required was God said so. Similarly, as the one holding mankind ransom, he could demand any price whatsoever to redeem them. Neither the Bible nor the Society show why animal or human sacrifices were necessary, beyond God’s simple demand.

Similarly, the Insight book makes a point about the concept of redemption in the laws of Israel:²⁴

Well illustrating the sense of a redeeming exchange is the law regarding a bull known to gore. If the owner allowed the bull to go loose so that it killed someone, the owner was to be put to death, paying for the life of the slain person with his own life. However, since he did not deliberately or directly kill another, if the judges viewed it proper to impose upon him a “ransom” instead, then he must pay that redemption price. The sum assessed and paid was viewed as taking the place of his own life and compensating for the life lost. On the other hand, no ransom could be accepted for the deliberate murderer; only his own life could cover the death of the victim.

So the law given to Israel recognized that a certain amount of discretion should be exercised by judges. The rule of “like for like” was not blindly applied — there was leeway, because the value of a life could be viewed as identical to the value of a sum of money. The viewing of Jesus’ life as equivalent to Adam’s life involves a similar degree of arbitrariness. The fact God is doing the viewing does not change anything. It is not at all clear to me the necessity he should take this view. This is made all the more clear by the fact the ransom price is to be paid to God. A slave holder can release his slaves by just declaring them free. Why could God not do the same? All the more since it appears that God put mankind into his inherently sinful state to begin with. And in keeping with the illustration on goring, Adam did not murder anyone. He committed a crime and was sentenced to death by God. You may argue that Adam murdered his unborn offspring, but this would again be a mere rhetorical device, as it is not possible to murder someone who does not exist. So in keeping with the law on goring bulls, something else of value could have been viewed as equivalent to Adam’s life, something other than another human life. The choice is not restricted by any justice that exists apart from God, and so the choice is entirely God’s. It could have been anything he wished.

The idea of a ransom sacrifice is inconsistent with portions of the Hebrew scriptures that condemn human sacrifice. This is exemplified by Jeremiah 7:30,31:

‘For the sons of Judah have done what is bad in my eyes…. they have built the high places…. in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.’

However, the ransom sacrifice doctrine is consistent with the many examples where God is said to handle justice according to the needs of the moment.

One example of this is shown by what God did in the case of David’s sinning with Bath-sheba. David committed adultery with her, and had her husband killed to cover it up. He

broke commandment after commandment, against coveting, stealing, adultery and murder.²⁵

Bath-sheba was also guilty of adultery, and both came under the clear sentence of Deuteronomy 22:22:

In case a man is found lying down with a woman owned by an owner, both of them must then die together, the man lying down with the woman and the woman. So you must clear away what is bad out of Israel.

God gave no exceptions to this law.

But Jehovah chose to handle their case differently, which “the Judge of all the earth” certainly had a right to do.²⁶

The above Awake! and Watchtower articles proceed to explain how God handled the case. God did not blindly apply the letter of the law and “like for like,” but tempered justice with mercy, as well as taking into account other considerations. The above cited Awake! article said one of these considerations was that

David was shown mercy because of the covenant God had made with him for the kingdom.

What was in the covenant? 2 Samuel 7 says God told David:

…. I shall certainly make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones that are in the earth…. I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, which will come out of your inward parts, and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. He is the one that will build a house for my name…. When he does wrong I will also reprove him…. As for my loving kindness, it will not depart from him the way I removed it from Saul…. And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.

To keep these promises to David, God was willing to sidestep the Law he gave to the Jews. Really, he wanted his word fulfilled, and if David died according to the Law, that would be impossible. Also, the Bible says God had special affection for David. So God was willing to adjust the application of principles such as “like for like” when he wanted to.

That God could have handled Adam’s sin in a manner different from what the Bible and the Society say he did is further shown by the fact that God did whatever was necessary to Jesus’ physical makeup, presumably including his genes, to be able to view him as perfect and inherently sinless, even though Jesus was born of an inherently sinful human. If he could do it for one human, why not the human race? If not all humans, then why one? The scriptural idea of God’s “declaring righteous” further shows that God can do it, if he wants to.

Because of the foregoing I am unable to agree with the reasoning in the answer to a question Reasoning from the Scriptures poses:²⁷

Why did God not simply decree that, although Adam and Eve must die for their rebellion, all of their offspring who would obey God could live forever?

Because Jehovah is “a lover of righteousness and justice.”….

As discussed earlier, this is the same as saying Jehovah is a lover of whatever he does, because whatever he does is by definition just and righteous.

So, the way he dealt with the situation upheld his righteousness, met the demands of absolute justice, and, at the same time, magnified his love and mercy. How is that so?

These statements are devoid of meaning, for reasons discussed earlier.

(1) Adam and Eve had produced no children before they sinned, so none were born perfect. All of Adam’s offspring were brought forth in sin, which was due to God’s direct action in changing their genes, and sin leads to death. If Jehovah had simply ignored this, that would have been a denial of his own righteous standards. God could not do that and so become a party to unrighteousness. He did not sidestep the requirements of absolute justice; so no intelligent creature could ever legitimately find fault in this respect….

In other words, things would not have been done the way he wanted.

(2) Without ignoring the requirements of justice,

Again, without ignoring what he wanted,

how could provision be made to deliver those of Adam’s offspring who would demonstrate loving obedience to Jehovah?

Why did he make it so much harder for mankind to obey him, when he himself made mankind inherently sinful?

If a perfect human was to die sacrificially, justice could allow for that perfect life to provide a covering for the sins of those who would in faith accept the provision. Since one man’s sin (that of Adam) had been responsible for causing the entire human family to be sinners, the shed blood of another perfect human (in effect, a second Adam), being of corresponding value, could balance the scales of justice….

Does this mean two wrongs make a right? Does the fundamental principle of “like for like” boil down to “bad things must come in pairs”?

Illustration: A family head may become a criminal and be sentenced to death. His children may be left destitute, hopelessly in debt. Perhaps their kindly grandfather intervenes on their behalf, making provision through a son who is living with him to pay their debts and to open up for them the possibility of a new life.

But if the children are in debt to the grandfather, he can just forgive the debt, unless he is very hardhearted. Does it make sense to demand payment from a third party? If the third party is another son, is the grandfather not all the more hardhearted?

It should be clear why I say I do not understand and am confused about original sin and the ransom sacrifice. As a reasoning human being, I am not able to understand these doctrines as presented in the Bible and in the Society’s publications. Because I am not able to convince myself of God’s love, justice and mercy with respect to these doctrines, it is difficult to have faith in any other part of the Bible.

Did Adam Try to Become Independent of God?

The Society says that a number of issues were raised by Satan in connection with Adam and Eve’s deliberate disobedience. These include:

1. The truthfulness of God (when God said Adam and Eve would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge, did he really mean it?)

2. Man’s dependence on God (could man decide for himself what was good and bad, and be happy in so doing?)

3. God’s sovereignty or way of ruling (was God holding back from man freedom that would contribute to his happiness?)

4. Did God’s creatures on earth or anywhere else love and worship him for his superlative qualities, or only for what they could get out of it (would or could they keep integrity under pressure)?

Of all the creatures watching and involved in the events, only Eve was deceived on point 1. Point 2 could have been solved for all non-human observers simply by a look at God’s design specifications for man. Since all man’s parts are “down in writing” and since spirit creatures had enough understanding of the design of the human body to materialize human bodies of their own before the Flood, this should have been no problem. Points 3 and 4 required an actual test to get an answer.

The Society says that when Adam and Eve were faced with the above questions, they chose independence from God. He let them have it, and much trouble has resulted. But did they really choose independence from God?

After Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command not to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge Eve said to God:

The serpent — it deceived me and so I ate.

What was Eve deceived about? Genesis 3:4 says concerning God’s warning of death for disobeying him:

…. the serpent said to the woman: “You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.”

The November 1, 1985 Awake said on page 4 that Satan the Devil

deceived the first woman, Eve, into thinking that she could be happier if she were only free from her Creator’s guidance.

So Eve thought she would get independence from God by eating the fruit. But did Adam think he would avoid the death sentence and get independence from God? 1 Timothy 2:14 answers:

Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.

So Adam exercised his free moral agency with full intelligence and chose to rebel, knowing full well that he would die and therefore not be independent of God. He did not believe Satan’s lie to Eve that he could obtain independence. As progenitor and head of the human family,²⁸ neither did he raise this issue with respect to his potential family. Eve’s actions may have raised the issue, and Satan did so explicitly, but neither one had the authority or position, as it could be argued did Adam, to choose for the human family independence from God.

So the Society’s usual charge, that “Adam chose human rule in order to try out independence from God,” is false, and the Society’s statements that

men have chosen independence from God and turned away from his rulership.²⁹

and

They decided…. to grasp for independence from their Creator and thereby “be like God.” They felt that they could determine for themselves what was right and what was wrong.³⁰

are incorrect. God rejected man after Adam’s sin, and that is why man is at this time independent from God.

Notwithstanding the above, the issue of whether man is capable of ruling himself has not been demonstrated unambiguously, because Satan “is the ruler of this world.” He advances a policy of rule or ruin³¹ and “walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone.” While I certainly believe that the words of Jeremiah 10:23,24 are true, that “it does not belong to man who is walking, even to direct his step,” this has not been demonstrated by the events the Society describes.

Since Adam did not choose independence from God, it is unfair of God to treat Adam’s offspring as if they did choose it. It is also unfair to treat them as if they were pawns in a chess game.

Let me slightly rephrase a paragraph from page 67 of the Truth book to illustrate what I’ve been trying to get at. It well illustrates my misgivings.³²

Satan’s false charges against God may be illustrated, to a certain extent, in a human way. Suppose a man having a large family is accused by one of his neighbors of many false things about the way he manages his household. Suppose the neighbor also says that the family members have no real love for their father but only stay with him to obtain the food and material things he gives them. How might the father of the family answer such charges? If he simply used violence against the accuser, this would not answer the charges. Instead, it might suggest that they were true. But what a fine answer it would be if he permitted his own family to be his witnesses and be killed and tortured to show that their father was indeed a just and loving family head and that they were happy to live with him because they loved him! Thus he would be completely vindicated and have shown how much he loved his family.

If my change to the original wording is obvious and sounds ridiculous, please explain why God’s dealings with mankind and Satan in this regard are any better.

The issue of proving God’s rulership proper is simply a dispute between Satan and God. The issue is the same as that raised in the account of Job, but on a much larger scale. In the same way that Job was not given a choice, none of Adam’s offspring was asked to be part of the dispute. Since Adam did not choose to be part of the dispute, his offspring have been forced into it without any say in the matter.³³ This seems to be clear proof that God views man as of little account, since he is willing to let Satan do as he pleases with him. We appear to be flies in God’s eyes.

God’s Love, Justice and Mercy

This section illustrates several problems with the Bible’s claims about God’s love, justice and mercy.

The doctrines of original sin and the ransom are related to the question of why God has permitted wickedness to exist. I am quite familiar with all the Society says on this matter, but one important issue is never discussed. If everything the Bible and the Society say concerning the end of this system of things is true, then nearly five billion people are soon going to die, with no prospects of a resurrection. The Society claims virtually all these people have heard the warning message, as it has declared the work has been preached in every nation by now. But many individuals have never heard the message, and many have heard it but considered it no further than any number of trivial claims on their time.

I get lots of junk mail. I do not read every word of every piece that shows up. If I did I would waste much time. Likewise, why should God expect that each person should consider in detail every religion that comes along claiming to be the Truth? And if one doesn’t consider every religion in detail, how can one be sure one has found the true religion? It is only by a detailed study that one can make an intelligent decision as to which religion is the true one. To expect one to decide that a religion is true on only a cursory hearing, from strangers who show up at the front door, is to expect one to make correct decisions on life-or-death matters with incomplete information. This is a denial of the reasoning facilities God put into man and is clearly unreasonable.

What is the status of people who change for good or bad just before Armageddon? Because of certain Biblical statements, it has been said that a person will live or die when the end comes based on the state that “the Lord” finds him in “when he arrives.” I suppose this is reasonable if a person turns to doing good, as it errs on the side of mercy, but if a person turns to doing bad, what account is taken of all his prior acts? Do they account for nothing? If the end came just one year later, the bad person might have turned back to doing good, and the good person may have fallen away. And what if, instead of a year later, it was a month? A day? By this reasoning, it can be seen that judging a person on the basis of his state when the end comes is fraught with opportunity for injustice. But the Bible leaves no room for speculation.

Similarly, the idea that “Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise…. but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance,” really is fraught with difficulty, because there will always be new people being born and new opportunities for someone to change one way or the other. Comparing the rate at which new people are born to the rate at which people become Jehovah’s Witnesses shows that waiting for more to attain to repentance is a losing proposition. The precise time when the end comes is surely based on other considerations. In view of the clear statements the Bible and the Society make on this issue, I don’t see God’s justice being exercised. I don’t see any way justice can be exercised, except that each person gets a full opportunity to hear the message, in the manner I’ve described above. People living when Armageddon comes should have the same opportunity as people will get in the resurrection.

What is this opportunity? The Bible says of the resurrection that “all those in the memorial tombs will hear [Jesus’] voice and come out.” (John 5:28) The Society says this includes most of those who have died. It is obvious most of them never heard a message similar to the one being preached today, but after they are resurrected they will get an opportunity to fully learn all the doctrines of the Bible, and much new information besides. But this opportunity is not being extended to people today, according to the Society. Many people have barely heard of Jehovah’s Witnesses; it is certainly not true that most of these think they are rejecting a message from God. Their ignorance or prejudices prevent them from truly appreciating the message, and therefore they do not understand the message. But the Society says people today are being required to make life- or-death decisions based on this cursory and incomplete information. This is not in accord with any standard of justice I can understand.

Some have suggested that perhaps some of the people that die at Armageddon will be resurrected later and get a full and fair chance to hear the complete message. In this way they would get exactly the same chance as all the others who would be resurrected. But the Bible itself seems to preclude the possibility.

To illustrate what I mean when I say these things are not in accord with justice, you would probably acknowledge that someone who died 100 years ago, having lived a reasonably good life, would be in line for a resurrection, even if he had once heard Pastor Russell’s message and rejected it. The same would probably be true of someone who once heard Jehovah’s Witnesses’ message, and died ten years ago, or one year ago. The point is this: What is the difference between someone who died one year ago, and someone who dies at Armageddon, both of whom had identical opportunities and identical responses to the message? Is it loving, just and merciful that one would get another opportunity in the resurrection to fully hear the message, and the other would not?

What about the idea from the Bible that “no man can come to [Jesus] unless the Father…. draws him”? (John 6:44) What this scripture really means is that God makes a judgement about a person’s worthiness to receive the message before he has ever heard the message. If this scripture is taken literally, then everything the Bible and the Society have said concerning the preaching work, and the idea that God will make a judgement on people’s worthiness to receive life based on their response to that work, are so much baloney. If God chooses who is to receive the message based on prior heart condition, then the preaching work is irrelevant to saving people from everlasting destruction.

Here are some comments paraphrased from Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, about a primitive religion.³⁴

It may be instructive for us to consider some passages from the ancient religious documents of the Zaruba tribe of central Africa. The Zarubas are so ferocious that tales of their savagery appear even in the folk legends of their neighbors.

That the Zarubas have been guilty for centuries of dreadful slaughter is of course — while deplorable — nothing to mark them as unique among human tribes, for on every continent there is a more than ample record of battlefield and conquest atrocities. But the Zarubas do hold the dubious distinction of not only hating other tribes — an evil to which all are prone — but of glorying in such hatred. It is to be hoped that most men today, if moved to strong, sustained anger will not, except in the context of imminent military confrontation, attempt to justify their vindictive emotions; many will experience some guilt as a result of them.

There is scarcely any trace of such softening of heart in the religious literature of the Zarubas, however. They not only justify their anger, but they inculcate it through many centuries, from generation to generation, so that Zaruba children are trained from the cradle to despise those whose only offense is that they are born into non-Zaruba tribes. The Christian admonition to love the sinner, while hating the sin, to do good to those that curse us, to love the enemy, to turn the other cheek, would be an absurd heresy to the Zarubas, which is presumably why exceedingly few of them have ever been converted by Christian missionaries.

An unattractive mixture of paranoia and fawning subjection to their deity renders the Zaruba religious philosophy even less attractive to the modern mind, including the minds of young educated Africans of Zaruba ancestry.

The following excerpt from a Zaruba hymn of praise, which is typical, reveals this unedifying combination of emotions:

Oh Mbomu, do not hold your blessings from me.

For the mouth of the wicked and the lying speak against me.

They speak words of hatred and fight against me without reason.

I pray to Mbomu, but my enemies return evil and hatred for the good I do.

Oh Mbomu, set an evil chief over my enemy and let Kimba [the devil] stand at his right hand.

When my enemy be judged, condemn him. Let even his prayer be judged evil.

Let his life be shortened and let another man take his village.

Let his children have no father and his wife be a widow.

Let his children wander lost in the jungles, begging for their food.

Let thieves steal my enemy’s property and let strangers spoil his work.

Oh, Mbomu, let nobody help this man. Do not even let anyone help his father and his children. Let his children in generations to come be killed. Let their names be blotted out.

Let the sins of the fathers and the mothers harass the children down through the generations.

But let Mbomu remember the sins that he may stamp out the memory of my enemies from the earth.

But as for me, Mighty Mbomu, be good to me for I am poor and needy and my heart is wounded with a spear.

My knees are weak and I am thin.

This is hardly edifying prayer; it is cursing, invoking as it does the power of the Deity to bring suffering to those the Zaruba consider their enemy. It must be understood here that the word enemy is not interpreted in the personal, but rather in a corporate, military, or ethnic sense. It is as if the prayer were spoken by, say, a German and by enemy he means not only the soldiers but all inhabitants of France, male and female, children, and the aged. Clearly the emotions expressed are primitive, vengeful — what one might expect from at least some, though happily not all, primitive cultures.

The sentiments are particularly unattractive in the context of the fact that the Zaruba themselves are noted for their warlike behavior and for the ruthlessness with which they have, over many centuries, attacked and slaughtered their neighbors. A typical Zaruba prayer, for example, actually recommends, indeed blesses, the Zaruba tribe member who will capture the innocent infants of a neighboring tribe and dash their brains out against a stone. The exact quotation is:

Happy will he be that grabs ahold and does dash to pieces your children against the crag.

As scholars of the Old Testament may have perceived, I have attempted to bypass, temporarily, certain prejudices, pro or con, in the minds of at least some readers of the present study by changing the name of the tribe of Judah to Zaruba, which I now explain is totally fictitious. Let the reader who a moment ago was rightly contemptuous of what he assumed was primitive African tribal behavior ponder the ethical and theological significance of his or her reactions.

My purpose in inventing this fictional tribe was to aid the reader in forming an opinion of typical Old Testament literature. The “Zaruba” prayer is actually a paraphrase of part of Psalm 109, with the last line taken from Psalm 137. I do not see how any unprejudiced reader can fail to be struck by its combination of fawning sycophancy on the one hand and psychotic hatred on the other.

…. Why must we hear ancient libels? Why are psalms like this in the Scriptures?

I was taken in by the above piece until almost the very end of the “quotation” from the “Zaruban hymn,” when I realized that it sounded an awful lot like the Bible, and I skipped ahead. How about you? The Society has often said that God, as presented in the Hebrew scriptures, is every bit as loving, just and merciful as is God as presented in the Greek Scriptures. I always believed these statements, but I was sometimes uncomfortable with some of the primitive and violent stories of the Hebrew scriptures. Being taken in by the above piece demonstrated to me that there is more to this issue than I used to think, and certainly more than the Society ever talks about in print.

A Bible story that has long made me wonder about God’s intentions in dealing with mankind, or at least, wonder about the truthfulness of the account, is found in the Genesis story of how Jacob obtained the blessing of the firstborn from Isaac. Jacob and his mother Rebekah lied to Isaac in order to get the blessing for Jacob. All of this was done with God’s express approval, and Isaac was extremely unhappy about it. Here are parts of the story from Genesis 27:

Now it came about that when Isaac was old and his eyes were too dim to see he then called Esau his older son and said to him: “…. make me a tasty dish such as I am fond of and bring it to me and, ah, let me eat, in order that my soul may bless you before I die.”

However, Rebekah was listening while Isaac spoke to Esau his son…. And Rebekah said to Jacob her son: “…. Go, please, to the herd and get me from there two kids of the goats, good ones, that I may make them up into a tasty dish for your father such as he is fond of. Then you must bring it to your father and he must eat it, in order that he may bless you before his death.”….

So he went on in to his father and said: “My father!” to which he said: “Here I am! Who are you, my son?” And Jacob went on to say to his father: “I am Esau your firstborn. I have done just as you have spoken to me. Raise yourself up, please. Sit down and eat some of my game, in order that your soul may bless me.” At that Isaac said to his son: “How is it that you have been so quick in finding it, my son?” In turn he said: “Because Jehovah your God caused it to meet up with me.” Then Isaac said to Jacob: “Come near, please, that I may feel you, my son, to know whether you are really my son Esau or not.” So Jacob came near to Isaac his father, and he went feeling him, after which he said: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” And he did not recognize him, because his hands proved to be hairy like the hands of Esau his brother. Hence he blessed him.

After that he said: “You are really my son Esau?” to which he said: “I am.”…. And he proceeded to bless him….

Now it came about as soon as Isaac had finished blessing Jacob…. that Esau…. came back from his hunting. And he too went about making a tasty dish. Then he brought it to his father and said to his father: “Let my father get up and eat some of his son’s game, in order that your soul may bless me.” At this Isaac his father said to him: “Who are you?” to which he said: “I am you son, your firstborn, Esau.” And Isaac began to shake with a great trembling in extreme measure, and so he said: “Who, then, was it that hunted for game and came bringing it to me, so that I ate of everything before you could come in and I blessed him? Blessed too he will become!”

On hearing his father’s words Esau began to cry out in an extremely loud and bitter manner and to say to his father: “Bless me, even me too, my father!” But he went on to say: “Your brother came with deception that he might get the blessing meant for you.” At this he said: “Is that not why his name is called Jacob, in that he should supplant me these two times? My birthright he has already taken, and here at this time he has taken my blessing!” Then he added: “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” But in answer to Esau Isaac continued: “Here I have appointed him master over you, and all his brothers I have given to him as servants, and grain and new wine I have bestowed for his support, and where is there anything I can do for you, my son?”

Then Esau said to his father: “Is there just one blessing that you have, my father? Bless me, even me too, my father!” With that Esau raised his voice and burst into tears.

Now it should be obvious from the above account that Jacob and Rebekah were guilty of trickery and deceit. Isaac himself said so. It is certainly true that Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob, and demonstrated his lack of appreciation for spiritual things. And it is true that God approved of the outcome. But that is precisely the problem! God approved of the results of deliberate trickery and deceit.

God, being all powerful, could easily have arranged matters so that Isaac was informed of the transfer of the birthright and could have told Isaac in a dream to bless Jacob instead of Esau. Isaac, being a good servant of God, would have done what he was told. But God did not do this. Instead he let his servants stoop to lying to achieve their ends. Not only did God permit this, but according to the September 15, 1964 Watchtower, he “directed matters.” This seems a most peculiar way for God to show his “absolute power, love, justice and mercy.” I think God could and would do better. This story is one more reason why I very much wonder if the God described in the Bible is really the same as the Creator of the universe.

Another problem with the account is the magical way the speaking of the blessing by Isaac is treated. It is as if the blessing were an invocation of magic which, once uttered, took effect on whoever happened to be standing before Isaac. If Isaac uttered words meant for Esau, then logically that is who the words should have applied to, no matter who was standing in front of Isaac. After all, Isaac’s words had no supernatural power. If Isaac had been in really bad shape and happened to utter his blessing to a goat that just happened to wander by, would the goat have gotten the blessing? If not, then why would Jacob receive it, when Isaac’s words were meant for Esau? And why was Isaac unable to give a blessing to Esau, or straighten things out afterward? Blessings are not tangible substances that can be poured out like water; they are spoken words. If you argue that God fulfills the spoken blessings in certain cases, and so gives real force to the words, then you are back to the problem of why God here condoned, or even directed, shockingly deceitful behavior.

A law of the Israelites concerning slaves is a good example of the sort of primitive violence the Bible occasionally condones. Exodus 21:20, 21 says:

And in case a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand, that one is to be avenged without fail. However, if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money.

Concerning this the Insight book says:³⁵

The Law protected slaves from brutalities…. Although a master could beat his slave, the slave, depending upon the decision of the judges, was to be avenged if he died under his master’s beating. However, if the slave lingered on for a day or two before dying — this indicating that the master had not intended to kill the slave but to discipline him — he was not to be avenged…. if a slave lingered on for a day or two, there would be reasonable question as to whether the death resulted from the chastisement. A beating with a rod, for example, would not normally be fatal….

Aside from being an absurd moral position, this sort of case would be cut-and-dried in any courtroom today. How likely is it that if a slave died within a few days of a beating it might not have been from the beating? If the slave had been so weak or sick that he might have died from something as “trivial” as a beating with a rod, should not the slave owner have seen that and refrained from beating him? If anyone died after injuries resulting from a beating, then until he had obviously recovered it should have been prima facie evidence that the beating was too severe, and the beater should have payed with his life as a deliberate murderer. If it could be determined that the beating had nothing to do with the death, then that should be taken into account, not the simple fact of how long it took the poor slave to die. Just put it into a situation one sees all too often today. If a parent beats his child, which he has a right to do, and the child is hospitalized and dies, are we not horrified that a parent would commit such a vile act? How is it any different with Israelite slaves? And note that the justification in the scripture for not avenging the slave if he died after a day was “because he is his money,” as if that has anything to do with the moral position. This law was an open invitation to brutality, because a slave owner was specifically permitted by law to beat his slave to within an inch of his life.

The Society deals with all questionable examples of God’s love, justice and mercy in a uniform manner: they are either ignored or said to be situations where we don’t have enough information to make a judgement. The Society starts with the premise that God is absolutely just and attempts to make all Bible accounts harmonize with this principle. This reasoning will not work if the Society truly wants to convince people of God’s justice. You cannot prove an argument by assuming a premise is true, and then turn around and use that assumption to prove the truth of the premise. You must prove the truth of a premise using ideas other than the assumption it is true. And you must provide compelling evidence in order to ignore or to disprove contrary examples.

For example, there is much evidence against the theory of evolution and much that supports it. Evidence disproving evolution would be the discovery of a single tooth from a modern human mixed in with dinosaur bones. An evolutionist would have to provide compelling evidence as to how such a discovery was consistent with his theory for it to remain credible among intelligent people. It does not matter that the discovery could be as small as a single tooth — evidence is evidence. The point is that it is extremely difficult to prove something true, but it takes only one counterexample to prove something false.

So it is with proving God is just. All potential counterexamples must be either compellingly disproved or it must be shown why they can be ignored. If counterexamples are not disproved, then one might still acceptthe assumption on faith that God is just, but then one may not logically prove it, and therefore one cannot say one understands that God is just. One can say only one believes God is just. Providing examples that show God’s justice, is necessary to prove the point, but is not sufficient. It has been said Satan will tell a thousand truths to get someone to believe one lie. There are indeed many accounts of God’s great justice to be found in the Bible, but it is hard to see how all Bible stories can be made to fit this ideal.

I would like to believe that the God of the Bible is truly the epitome of justice, but I cannot see it. The above counterexamples show a few reasons why. Note these are not examples where there is lack of clear statement from the Bible; on the contrary, the Bible is quite definite. I do not see the justice of the God of the Bible in these clearly stated things. I would like to think that my questionings in these areas are in the spirit that Abraham showed when questioning God on his intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, when he said:

Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?…. It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?

This is why in these essays I’ve sometimes said that while I’m convinced a creator exists, I do not see that he is the same as the God of the Bible. Just as many people cannot believe the doctrine of hellfire because it so strongly goes against their built-in sense of righteousness and justice, so I can’t quite believe many of the things the Bible says about God. I can agree in principle with one thing, which is that³⁶

Jehovah does not expect us to show blind credulity. He does not want from us the kind of obedience that a trainer gets from a beast with a bridle or a whip. That is why he told David: “Do not make yourselves like a horse or mule without understanding, whose spiritedness is to be curbed even by bridle or halter.” (Psalm 32:9) Rather, Jehovah has endowed us with thinking ability and discernment so that, based on understanding, we can choose to obey him.

I have no intentions of acting as a mule. I desire understanding.

There are many other examples where it appears to me that the God of the Bible did not act justly. When he dealt with the forefathers of the Jews, many of the stories where he blessed them also showed very poor treatment of others. For example, Abraham twice passed off his wife Sarah as his sister, once to Pharaoh and once to Abimelech. In both cases, Abraham acted with treachery and cowardice, and yet had God’s approval. Abimelech acted far more righteously than did Abraham, and yet the Bible account puts Abraham in a completely favorable light. Isaac did virtually the same thing with another³⁷ Abimelech. In any case, these stories are clear in showing that God did not act impartially, but showed favor to certain ones at the expense of others. By no stretch of the imagination did God deal with Abimelech the same as he did with Abraham. He did not treat Job’s children and servants the same as he treated Job.

In all these cases the behavior of God leaves much to be desired. If you take the position that these stories really are true and that they were “written for our instruction,” then the question immediately presents itself, What sort of instruction? I certainly can’t resolve the problem. What I’ve read in the Society’s publications often sounds like apologetic grasping at straws and is unconvincing. The usual argument is that we don’t possess all the details and so cannot make judgements on the stories. God must have acted justly, even though we can’t understand it. But if that is the case, then in what manner have the stories been written for our instruction? How can we conclude, based on his actions, that God always acts justly? You can use that argument just so many times before you use up all your silver bullets.

When God gave Satan permission to kill Job’s children and servants, was it showing love, mercy and justice to them? If God had personally put them to death, it would be quite clear that he had acted unjustly.³⁸But is God’s giving permission to Satan any better? If a governmental authority gives his permission for someone to carry out a course of action, then that authority is responsible for the consequences of that course. This is a widely recognized principle of law.

Many individuals who are Jehovah’s Witnesses often cavalierly claim that after having prayed to God, something beneficial occurred. Whether the person’s prayer was answered, no one can say, but the person invariably believes that God personally answered his prayers. The Society does much to encourage this attitude. In most cases the truth is probably closer to what is illustrated by the following:³⁹

There was a professional criminal in Brooklyn in the 1950s named Harry Gross, among whose various rackets and scams was one that was quite ingenious. He caused it to be rumored around the neighborhood that he could secure exemption from the draft at the cost of $1,000 per customer. The offer was accompanied by a money- back guarantee. Great numbers of anxious mothers and young men paid Gross thousands of dollars. Some of these were later drafted; in these instances Gross promptly refunded the payment. A number of others were not required to serve. The point is that Gross did nothing whatever, in any case. He was clever enough to perceive that a certain percentage of people would not be drafted; from each of these he made a very easy $1,000. The people who were not taken into the military naturally assumed that their good fortune had been produced by Gross’s exertions. Something like the same procedure — it is possible — may be involved with respect to supplicatory prayer. We later do receive some of the things we pray for, just as in other cases our wishes are not satisfied.

This, you will probably admit, is the usual case with people who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it seems that many Witnesses have no conception that this may also apply to them. I’ve sometimes heard Witnesses say, with great wisdom, when they don’t seem to be getting any response, that God answers every prayer but sometimes his answer is No.

Among many major problems that the Bible says would befall mankind is what is stated in Revelation 6:8: “And authority was given them…. to kill…. by the wild beasts of the earth.” In these populous times it is certainly true that wars, food shortages, plagues, and other problems have hit mankind hard. But it can hardly be said that death from the wild beasts of the earth is in the same league. It is true that tigers kill several hundred people every year in India, and that possibly several hundred more are killed earthwide by shark and other animal attacks. But the probability of dying from animal attack is less than the probability of being killed by a tornado or lightning or any number of other causes. It is far more likely that one will be killed in an automobile accident, but even that is not something people live in fear of. Animal attacks are simply not an issue to most of the population of the earth.

There are other far more common ways people die that Revelation could have mentioned, such as floods. In the spring of 1991 well over 100,000 people died in floods in Bangladesh. In 1970 between 500,000 and one million lost their lives in the same area. In the 1930s the Yellow River in China overflowed its banks and killed possibly ten million people. Why does the Bible not mention flooding as a serious problem? It is many orders of magnitude more serious than animal attacks. What about the several hundred thousand people who die worldwide each year in automobile accidents? Doesn’t this problem deserve at least an honorable mention? It seems to me that trying to justify Revelation’s mention of animal attacks is an exercise in futility.

The book The Bible: God’s Word or Man’s?⁴⁰ skips comment about such things and implies, but does not clearly state, that the reference to wild beasts in Revelation 6:8 actually is a reference to men who act like wild beasts. But the other three references in the scripture are to literal things. How can the Society so cavalierly interpret one part of the verse as literal and another part as figurative? Clearly, the answer is that the writer knows he is unable to address the question I raise above, and is only able to salvage the prophecy by implying part of it is figurative. So how is it that Revelation 6:8 is of any significance whatsoever? Indeed, since the reference to being killed by the wild beasts of the earth is clearly implied to be in the same category as the other problems, does not the lack of serious problems with wild beasts argue that the rest of the verse has no prophetic significance? And what do these things imply as to the significance of other prophecies that make similar predictions?

The Society has pointed to much scriptural evidence showing God’s view on the sanctity of the marriage arrangement and the responsibility of parents for their children. But Exodus 21:2-4 says:

In case you should buy a Hebrew slave, he will be a slave six years, but in the seventh he will go out as one set free without charge. If he should come in by himself, by himself he will go out. If he is the owner of a wife, then his wife must go out with him. If his master should give him a wife and she does bear him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s and he will go out by himself.

So much for God’s view on the sanctity of the marriage arrangement. This also illustrates the Bible’s view that women are property, the Society’s apologetics notwithstanding.

I’ve always thought the Genesis account of Lot’s doings rather odd. The account of his daughters’ committing incest with him two nights in a row is awfully far-fetched. Steve Allen made some comments about this that put my own unease into focus. Speaking of the Genesis account he said:⁴¹

Chapter 19 is also infamous for one of the vilest incidents in the Old Testament.

30. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31. And the firstborn said unto the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.”

For the reader who might not be familiar with the common Bible phraseology pertaining to sexual acts, it should be explained that “to come in unto” refers to sexual intercourse. Lot’s daughter was speaking nonsense when she gave the excuse that there was no other man on the entire planet with whom she and her sister could have physical relations, but whoever authored this absurd story was clearly not familiar with human sexuality. The woman urges her sister.

32. “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.”

33. And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

The author of this unedifying account is clearly deficient in knowledge about both alcoholic intoxication and sexual intercourse. If a man were falling-down-drunk, he would be incapable of having an erection. If we start with the questionable assumption that a man is able to have sexual intercourse although deeply intoxicated it would seem that he would at least be aware that he was engaged with a female. It is conceivable that a man in a dark room might not be able to identify the woman, but this cannot be the case with Lot, since he lived alone with his daughters in a hillside cave. If he had discovered a woman copulating with him in the night, he would have known that it could only be one daughter or the other.

To flesh out this absurd fantasy the detail is added that both women become pregnant, — meaning that the drunken Lot was able to have at least two orgasms — thereby begetting the Moabites and Ammonites. Scholars now suspect that this story was put into Genesis to justify the Hebrews’ hatred for the Moabites and Ammonites, although these groups were related, Semitic-speaking tribes who lived east of the Jordan River.

This discussion touched on each part of the story I’d already concluded sounded far-fetched. Note what a Watchtower article said regarding the account:⁴²

Why, then, does the account appear in the Scriptures? The narrative is not presented in the Bible to stimulate erotic thoughts. It is there for a purpose, revealing the relationship of the Moabites and Ammonites to the descendants of Abraham who became known as Israelites.

Note the Watchtower article says nothing about the problems raised above with the Genesis account, although it does partially agree with the scholars Steve Allen mentions on the reason it was included in Genesis. However the Aid book says concerning the account:⁴³

Lot was evidently drunk enough to lose control of his good sense but not “dead drunk,” that is, not too drunk to have sexual relations. (Some ancient Jewish authorities claim that the original Hebrew text read, at verses 33 and 35: “he did know when she got up.”)

The best I can conclude about this account is that it presents serious problems for an apologist, and it certainly does not sound like an actual historical event. It is straining credulity to be asked to believe that not only were Lot’s daughters able to put over on Lot the act of incest two nights in a row without his knowing it, but that they both got pregnant. Has anyone calculated the odds against both women getting pregnant the first time they had sex, and that with a man so drunk he had no idea what was happening? It is not impossible, but the likelihood is so low as to throw the entire account of Lot into the realm of fairy tales. And if Lot actually did know what happened the first night, which is at least somewhat believable, then when the daughters began plying him with wine the second night, don’t you think that, as a righteous servant of God, he would have gotten suspicious and immediately put a stop to it?

It must be conceded that the Bible is often confusingly worded. Why would God, if he inspired it for man’s guidance and enlightenment, communicate so obtusely?

Jesus’ keeping integrity as a sinless man says nothing about the capability of mankind, who the Bible says has to contend with inherited sin. Therefore holding Jesus up as an example of what mankind should be like is unfair, as it is unattainable.

In Genesis 3:22 God says, “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” Since at that time God had not given to anyone else, including spirit creatures, the authority to determine for themselves what is good and bad, who is the ‘us’ the scripture refers to?

When God put Adam and Eve outside the garden of Eden, he put a “flaming blade of a sword” to guard the entrance. This shows that God invented the very first weapon of war, the sword.

If you came upon a story like that of Adam and Eve in, say, an old Hindu document, would you believe it? If so why? If not, you should be able to see why the issues I’ve raised in this essay about the ransom sacrifice are of fundamental importance to understanding the Bible.

Romans 6:23 says: “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” This scripture implies that the slate is wiped clean upon a person’s death, and other scriptures along with this imply that God gives the gift of everlasting life to those whom he will resurrect. Yet Matthew 12:32 implies the slate is not wiped clean by death, when it says: “whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come.” How can these two contradictory messages be reconciled?

Psalm 145:16 says of God: “You are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing.” At present, the falsity of this scripture is so self-evident as to hardly require comment. As for the possibility that this scripture applies to some future time, note the wording of the scripture is in the present tense.

Proverbs 10:22 says of God: “The blessing of Jehovah — that is what makes rich, and he adds no pain with it.” You have only to allow a small child to pick blackberries to see the falsity of this scripture.

Judges 11:30,31 says:

Jephthah made a vow to Jehovah and said: “If you without fail give the sons of Ammon into my hand, it must also occur that the one coming out, who comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, must also become Jehovah’s, and I must offer that one up as a burnt offering.”

An article in the Insight book says concerning this scripture:⁴⁴

Did Jephthah have in mind human sacrifice when he vowed to present as a burnt offering the first one coming out of his house?

Some critics and scholars have condemned Jephthah for his vow, having the view that Jephthah followed the practice of other nations, offering up his daughter by fire as a human burnt offering. But this is not the case. It would be an insult to Jehovah, a disgusting thing in violation of his law, to make a literal human sacrifice…. When Jephthah said: “it must also occur that the one coming out, who comes out of the doors of my house to meet me…. must also become Jehovah’s,” he had reference to a person and not an animal…. Jephthah knew that it might well be his daughter who would come out to meet him…. How, then, would the person coming out to meet Jephthah to congratulate him on his victory “become Jehovah’s” and be offered up “as a burnt offering”?

The article then proceeds in the Society’s usual fashion to avoid answering the question it raised. It is shown how in one sense Jephthah’s daughter could “become Jehovah’s” by being devoted to exclusive sanctuary service, and words are said about animal sacrifices, but nowhere is it shown clearly how the daughter was offered up “as a burnt offering.” The article certainly dances around the issue, though.

Concerning supposed contradictions in the Bible, the Watchtower said:⁴⁵

Another seeming contradiction is found by comparing Exodus 34:7 with Ezekiel 18:20. The first text states that God would bring “punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons,” while the latter states that “a son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father.” Why do these texts appear to be contradictory? Because they are taken out of context. Examine the surrounding material and setting. It then becomes obvious that when God mentioned punishment as coming upon not only fathers but also sons and grandsons, he was speaking of what would result to Israelites as a nation if they sinned against him and were taken into captivity. On the other hand, when mentioning that a son would not be liable for the error of his father, he was speaking of personalaccountability.

That explanation sounds just fine until you read 2 Kings 5:27, which said concerning Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, after he had misappropriated property from Naaman:

So the leprosy of Naaman will stick to you and your offspring to time indefinite.

Additionally, Exodus 20:5 (JPS Tanakh translation) says:

For I the LORD your God am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me.

In this light it is clear that the Watchtower is just explaining away another problem. Even if the Society’s explanation of Ex. 34:7 and Ex. 20:5 is correct, God still has visited punishment upon innocent people, albeit via community responsibility.

---

Footnotes

¹ Reasoning from the Scriptures, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1985.

² Life Does Have a Purpose, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1977.

³ Awake!, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY.

⁴ anonymous, op cit.

⁵ The Watchtower, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY.

⁶ New York Times writer William Safire said in his book Fumblerules: A Lighthearted Guide to Grammar and Good Usage, Doubleday, New York, 1990, p. 72, that there are “good uses of passivity. However, the bad use of the passive voice is in obfuscation. Abraham Lincoln, to escape personal responsibility in a message to Congress, changed all the active voices to passive, and bureaucrats have been following that example ever since. Permission was refused is the classic trick in passive construction; it avoids the need for a perpetrator of the turndown. In the active voice, the writer would have to say, Joe Blow refused permission — but Mr. Blow may not want the responsibility. That’s why this device is favored in diplomatic documents.”

U.S. News and World Report said in its August 19, 1991 issue, on page 17, in an article entitled “No-fault syntax,” “‘Obviously, some mistakes were made,’ said John Sununu, referring to his travel adventures as White House chief of staff. This is a wonderful nonapology, which seizes the blame and casts it firmly into outer space…. ‘Mistakes were made.’ William Schneider, a political analyst for CNN, calls this usage ‘the past exonerative,’ a sharp phrase, quoted in William Safire’s language column in the Sunday New York Times Magazine…. All writing courses tell students to stick to the active voice as much as possible, partly because the passive voice is the natural home of limp and evasive writing. It is also a terrific screen to conceal choices, responsibility and moral conflicts. Mr. Sununu, could you please recast that for us in the active voice?” In the spirit of clarity of thought the Society should recast its statement, “a grave defect came to exist in Adam,” in the active voice.

⁷ Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, 1988.

⁸ New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1984.

⁹ anonymous, op cit.

¹⁰ anonymous, op cit, Vol. 1.

¹¹ True Peace and Security — How Can You Find It?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1986.

¹² Is This Life All There Is?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1974.

¹³ anonymous, op cit.

¹⁴ The Bible does not “explain” this. Webster’s Dictionary says that “to explain” means “1: to make plain or understandable…. 2: to give the reason for or cause of…. 3: to show the logical development or relationships of….” Rather, the Bible declares or announces what happened.

¹⁵ The writer here uses “imperfection,” confusing the term with “sin”, and especially, “inherited sinfulness.” The scriptural quotation that follows shows his confusion.

¹⁶ I will have more to say on this shortly.

¹⁷ If one makes the claim that when the Bible quotes God as saying he does something, he does not necessarily mean exactly what he says, especially when he takes credit for something that is clearly unpleasant, then one has discredited the Bible as a reliable source. Either the Bible’s statements are to be accepted at face value, or they may be interpreted any way one sees fit. Which is the consistent position?

¹⁸ op cit, Vol. 2.

¹⁹ anonymous, op cit.

²⁰ Look! I Am Making All Things New, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1986.

²¹ anonymous, op cit.

²² op cit, Vol. 2.

²³ op cit, Vol. 1, p. 211.

²⁴ op cit, Vol. 2, p. 733.

²⁵ Awake!, p. 27, August 22, 1965.

²⁶ The Watchtower, p. 31, March 15, 1986.

²⁷ anonymous, op cit, p. 307.

²⁸ Insight on the Scriptures, op cit, Vol. 2, p. 964.

²⁹ Awake!, p. 9, February 22, 1986.

³⁰ Life-How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, p. 190, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, 1985.

³¹ ibid, p. 193.

³² The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, Rev. 1981.

³³ At a circuit assembly in Woodburn, Oregon, on Saturday, April 24, 1991, an illustration was given in which the audience was asked, “What would you do if you were locked up in a room with someone who was insane, murderous, treacherous, deceitful, and very intelligent. Would you be sleeping?…. Satan has been cast down from heaven to the vicinity of the earth and we are locked up with him….” It seems no one saw the point that God ultimately is the one who cast Satan down and put mankind in the position described. Do you think this is an expression of God’s love, justice, and mercy toward man?

³⁴ Steve Allen, Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, pp. 356-358, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1990.

³⁵ op cit, Vol. 2, p. 978.

³⁶ The Watchtower, p. 30, April 1, 1988.

³⁷ The details of these stories are so similar that one has to wonder if they are really true, or are actually several versions of the same original legend, with only the names changed.

³⁸ The Watchtower, p. 341, June 1, 1976.

³⁹ Steve Allen, Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1990.

⁴⁰ The Bible — God’s Word or Man’s?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, 1989.

⁴¹ Steve Allen, op cit, pp. 175-176.

⁴² The Watchtower, p. 319, Jay 15, 1972.

⁴³ Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 469, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, 1971.

⁴⁴ op cit, Vol. 2, p. 27.

⁴⁵ The Watchtower, p. 6, February 1, 1988.

---

Alan Feuerbacher

[Editors: this content is included because it is relevant to those JWs who wish to remain associated with their JW congregations to understand why they will not usually be allowed to hold on to views that vary from the Watchtower itself. It is also related to the claim of being the “faithful slave” and “God’s only channel of communication” in our day. Most links within this article refer back to corior.blogspot.com]

From a series: “The Society’s View of Truth”

Index:

• Part 1: The Society’s View of Material It Publishes
• Part 2: The Society’s View of Elders
• Part 3: Jehovah’s Witnesses Not a Sect?

---

Part 3

 
The Society goes to some length in the series of articles in the September 15, 1983 Watchtower to establish that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a sect. This conclusion, and the reasoning behind it, are emphasised in the section “Do You Remember” in the December 15, 1983 Watchtower, which says:

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not disciples of a human leader or teacher. Jehovah God and Christ Jesus are their teachers. Hence, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a sect.

However, this conclusion is not in line with the normal usage of “sect” in English. The writers of these articles have gone to some length to avoid acknowledging this common usage. For some reason they don’t like the word. Let’s analyze the articles to see why I can say this.

The first article begins by saying that most religions are divided into sects:¹

Some of these [ten main religions, but 10,000] sects are long-established religious groups and consider themselves to be full-fledged churches. Certain old religions are divided up into sects….”

The article attempts to distinguish between the words “church” and “sect” in both the above quotation and in the subheading “Church or Sect?”:²

The word “church” does not have the same connotation in all countries…. Even in [predominantly Protestant] countries, generally a person cannot say he belongs to a church unless he is a member of the larger, long-established Protestant religions. Otherwise he is viewed as belonging to some sect. True, in the United States even small offshoot religions are often honored with the name church. But in most other countries they would have to content themselves with being called a sect.”

This is the writer’s first set of errors. We are not concerned with how “church” or “sect” is used in various countries; we are concerned with English in places where it is spoken as a native language. The important things are the meanings of the words “sect” and “church” as currently used by native English speakers. After all, native speakers define the language. True, some connotations of the English words are different in other countries, as the Watchtower writers have mentioned, but what they really mean is that the connotations of the words, when translated into other languages, are sometimes different. However, sometimes the connotations of the translated words are identical across languages.

Webster’s Dictionary³ lists, among others, one definition of “church:”

3: a body or organization of religious believers as: a: the whole body of Christians b: DENOMINATION c: CONGREGATION

The capitalized words are stated to be synonyms for “church.” Webster’s also lists, among many others, one definition of “sect:”

b: a religious denomination.

Roget’s Thesaurus lists the words “sect,” “church,” “denomination” and “persuasion” as the most common synonyms for each other.⁴ Many other dictionaries show that although some connotations of the words “church” and “sect” differ, other connotations are identical or nearly so. The Watchtower writers have ignored the similar connotations of “church” and “sect,” and implied that the words have only different connotations. They state “church” means only an established religion (i.e., that of many) whereas “sect” means anything else. It is, however, for this discussion irrelevant that the equivalent of these words in languages other than English have differing connotations. The only important factor is how native English speakers use the words.

Next the writers attempt to define “sect.” They state two of the many definitions (references are not stated), ignoring all definitions that do not suit their purpose:

A sect has been defined as “a comparatively small recently organized exclusive religious body; esp: one that has parted company with a longer established communion.” According to another definition, a sect is “a dissenting religious body; esp: one that is heretical in the eyes of other members within the same communion.”

With these incomplete definitions established, the writers then trace the etymology, or history, of the word (again references are not stated):

Some claim that the word “sect” is derived from the Latin verb secare (to cut) and define a sect as a group that has broken away from an established church. Others trace the word “sect” back to the Latin verb sequi (to follow) and thus apply it to a group that follows a particular human leader or teacher.

The remainder of the four articles use these restricted definitions to prove that all other definitions are incorrect.

I’ve looked up the definitions of the word “sect” in dictionaries published in Britain and the United States. Common word usage in these countries, as defined in these dictionaries, certainly defines the words.

1. A group of people with religious or other beliefs that differ from those more generally accepted.⁵

2. 1. A system of religious belief. 2. Those who accept and practice a particular religious belief.⁶

3. 1. a religious denomination, esp. one deviating from a generally accepted tradition. 2. any group united by a specific doctrine or under a leader.⁷

4. 1 a: a dissenting or schismatic religious body; esp: one regarded as extreme or heretical b: a religious denomination…. 3 a: a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.⁸

5. A body of persons following certain principles or doctrines (as, a philosophical sect); esp., a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination; often, a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes, a party regarded as deviating from the general religious tradition, or as heretical; sometimes, a body separated from a particular church; a body of dissenters from an established church;….⁹

6. 1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination. 2. a group regarded as deviating from the general religious tradition or as heretical. 3. (in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches.¹⁰

7. 4. A religious following; adherence to a particular religious teacher or faith…. c. In modern use, commonly applied to a separately organized religious body, having its distinctive name and its own places of worship; a denomination. Also, in a narrower sense, one of the bodies separated from the church. The Sects: applied by Anglicans to the various bodies of Dissenters, by Roman Catholics to all forms of Protestantism.¹¹

Note the preceding definitions contain, but are not limited to, the definitions of “sect” as presented by the Watchtower writers. Several references trace the etymology or derivation of “sect:”

8. Etymology: from Middle French secte group, sect; from Late Latin secta organized ecclesiastical body; from Latin secta way of life, class of persons; from Latin sequi to follow.¹²

9. a[dopted from] F[rench] secte…., or directly ad[apted from] L[atin] secta following (used as cognate object in sectam sequi, to follow a person’s guidance or example), hence a party or faction, a philosophical sect or school, a class or profession…., f[rom] sequi– root of sequi to follow…. It has been maintained that L[atin] secta is the fem[inine] p[articiple] of secare to cut…. some of the uses of secta are more satisfactorily accounted for by derivation from sequi than from secare.¹³

I don’t see how it could be clearer, from these definitions, that the word “sect” can legitimately be applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Do general circulation English language newspapers and journals err when they do so? Not according to the dictionaries. It is not up to a specific speaker of a language to create for a word whatever meaning he wants. The Watchtower has no business trying to redefine the English language word “sect.”

The writers of these Watchtower articles have restricted the meanings of “sect” to those definitions which enable them to prove their point. They have not mentioned the word also has more general meanings, but they are restricting the meaning to a narrow sense. Also note they say some unspecified “others” apply “sect” to “a group that follows a particular human leader or teacher.” But none of the definitions I’ve quoted or seen in other references mentions that a human has to be the leader. Definition 3. above mentions a group united by a specific doctrine or under a leader. Definition 4. mentions a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader. Definition 5. mentions following certain principles or doctrines. Definition 7. mentions adherence to a particular religious teacher or faith. Note the common threads: united under a doctrine, principle or faith; or united under a leader or teacher. One may argue that it is implicit in these definitions that the leader must be a human. But the definitions do not require it, and the Watchtower writers have not so argued. They have inserted “human” into their definition without justification and without telling the reader. They have also ignored the common threads in the definitions, which do not refer to a “human”. The writers assume that most readers will miss the point. This is proved by their statement that “the members of many of these [10,000 churches and] sects follow some human leader, whereas Jesus Christ stated: ‘Your Leader is one, the Christ.'”

In the derivations of “sect” from older words, most of definition 9. above correctly describes Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious body; so does definition 10. Christianity certainly is a “following;” it follows Christ. It follows “a particular course of conduct,” it follows “a person’s guidance or example” — Jesus’ and Jehovah’s guidance and examples. And Jesus certainly is and was a person.¹⁴ Christianity is a “party,” as Webster’s gives one definition of “party” as “a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest.” Christians are on Jehovah’s side on the question of universal sovereignty.

The last acknowledgement in the Watchtower articles that the writers are using “sect” in a restricted sense appears in a statement on page 9:

[Jehovah’s Witnesses] are not a sect, inasmuch as they are neither the disciples of some human teacher or leader nor an offshoot of any one church or sect.

The acknowledgement appears in the use of the phrase “inasmuch as.” Then the writer takes a step toward his goal, again glossing over the point about “human leader,” with the statement “they follow no man but rather God and His Son….” The writer of the later “Do You Remember” article seems to think that this is the main point and the matter is closed, but he has surely ignored the reasoning leading to this point.

By the third article in the September 15 Watchtower series, the writers drop all reference to the common usage of “sect,” and apply it only in the restricted sense of the first article. Again, the reader is not informed of this. “All the churches of Christendom originally were sects.” The writers do not care that by common usage as reflected in the dictionary definitions all religions are still sects — they only want to point out that all churches of Christendom started off as offshoots of something else and that these offshoots always followed men. At this point they want the reader to know full well that a sect has only the above bad connotations. Other references to “sect” in paragraphs 11 and 15 of the article further show this.

The final, crucial argument comes in the fourth article, page 17, para. 8, where the writers object to the fact that “Jewish sects disdainfully called the early Christians a sect.” They then say

the apostle Paul rejected this misnomer, stating: “According to the way that they [his religious enemies] call a ‘sect,’ in this manner I am rendering sacred service to the God of my forefathers.” (Acts 24:14)

I don’t see how the writers can say that Paul, in this scripture, is rejecting anything. Paul merely acknowledges without comment that the Jews call his form of worship a sect, when he says “in this manner….” This is further borne out by looking at this scripture in Bible translations other than the New World Translation:

But this I confess unto thee that, after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers. (Authorized Version)

But this I acknowledge to you, it is in the way of the movement they call a sect that I am worshipping our fathers’ God. (The Bible in Living English)

What I do admit to you is this: it is according to the Way which they describe as a sect that I worship the God of my ancestors. (The Jerusalem Bible)

But this much I will admit: I am a follower of the new way (the ‘sect’ they speak of), and it is in that manner that I worship the God of our fathers. (The New English Bible)

However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers, as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. (The New Testament New International Version)

The Watchtower writers do not explain in what manner they think Paul is rejecting “this misnomer.” Again, without justification or explanation the writers merely state their conclusion. I see nothing in the scripture where Paul objects to the term — in fact he acknowledges its use.

The writers also say that the Greek word “hai’resis,” from which “sect” is translated, denotes “a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets.” As usual, the source of the definition is not stated. According to Strong’s Concordance¹⁵ “hai’resis” means:

properly a choice, i.e., (esp) [but not limited to] a party or (ab[stractly]) disunion.

Also see Aid to Bible Understanding under “Sect.” The above description could certainly be applied to early Christians. They were “a body of men.” They separated “themselves from others” (2 Cor. 6:17). They adopted Jehovah’s principles, as taught by Jesus, as their own, in their hearts (Jer 31:33), and so these principles became “their own tenets.” What more is needed to fit a definition?

The definition says nothing about whether the “body of men” came up with the tenets themselves, nor does it say anything about where the tenets originated — only that the tenets are “their own,” as opposed to being also the tenets of some other group. Finally the writers say:

In no way could Christians be called a sect, for they were following Jesus Christ, not any man. Further, they were certainly not an offshoot of one of the sects of Judaism.

That a religious body does not need a human leader to be called a sect can easily be seen from the following argument: Satan is the god of this system of things and all false religious sects are under Satan. Therefore Satan is the leader of all false religious sects. Satan is not a human. Q.E.D.

It seems to me that the writers think of the term “sect” only as a derisive one — therefore they put much effort into proving that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a sect. Often, but not always, others who speak of a sect use the term derisively. But that should not be surprising. If one believes that one’s religion is true and that a sect is a derisive word for other religions, then of course one will use that term to describe other religions and object to anyone else’s using it to describe one’s own. Note especially in definition 7. above, how Catholics describe Protestants. They are correct in doing so.

It is the same with the word “heresy,” which is translated in the Authorized Version from the same Greek word “hai’resis,” as is “sect.” Catholics are perfectly justified in calling Jehovah’s Witnesses heretics. Likewise Jehovah’s Witnesses are justified in calling Catholics heretics or apostates. The merits of the religion are irrelevant to the question of word use.

It seems as if the writers are making the sort of imaginary distinction earlier Watchtower writers made in trying to distinguish between religion and worship. Religion always implied false religion and worship always implied true worship, as if there were no such thing as true religion or false worship, a la “Religion is a snare and a racket.”

There are a large number of English speaking people who are agnostic or atheist. They have no prejudice about using “sect” as a synonym for “religion” or “philosophy.” As native English speakers, they are perfectly well justified in using “sect” in any commonly accepted way.

As an example of this sort of word use, everyone knows what a “metal” is. However, astronomers use the word “metal” in a technical sense to refer to any substance that is not hydrogen or helium. Also, some people often refer to the music style called “heavy metal” as just “metal.” Using your knowledge that compact discs (CD’s) are made of plastic, if an astronomer told you that the compact disc in his hands was “metal,” what would he mean? Answer: you could not tell, because of the several definitions of “metal.” To know what he meant you would have to know the context in which he posed his statement. He could not argue that the CD was or was not “metal” unless he defined his context, because in some contexts a CD is “metal” and in some it isn’t.

It should be clear from the preceding discussion that to prove a narrow point of view the Watchtower writers distort the common usages of an English word that has multiple connotations. They ignore most of those connotations and do not seem to understand that word definitions are inclusive, not exclusive. If a thing fits any commonly accepted definition, then use of the word to describe the thing is proper. The writers even admit this as respects common usage of “church” in the United States, but then ignore it as if common usage in the largest English speaking country in the world is of no significance. If the writers want to prove that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a human leader, or any of the other points they discuss, then they should do so without trying to prove that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a sect. I’ve shown that by all common English language usage Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect. The usage appears in books, magazines, and newspapers; it is almost always neutral. In the final analysis, who cares?

---

Footnotes

¹ The Watchtower, p. 3, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, Sept. 15, 1983.

² ibid, p. 3.

³ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1979.

⁴ Roget’s International Thesaurus, Fourth Edition, Harper & Row, Inc., 1979.

⁵ Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.

⁶ Roget’s II The New Thesaurus, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass, 1980.

⁷ The Random House Dictionary, Ballantine Books, New York, 1978.

⁸ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1979.

⁹ The New Century Dictionary of the English Language, D. Appleton-Century Company, London, 1946.

¹⁰ The American College Dictionary, Random House, Inc., New York, 1962.

¹¹ The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971.

¹² Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1979.

¹³ The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971.

¹⁴ Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 12, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

¹⁵ The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

---

Alan Feuerbacher

[Editors: this content is included because it is relevant to those JWs who wish to remain associated with their JW congregations to understand why they will not usually be allowed to hold on to views that vary from the Watchtower itself. It is also related to the claim of being the “faithful slave” and “God’s only channel of communication” in our day. Most links within this article refer back to corior.blogspot.com]

From a series: “The Society’s View of Truth”

Index:

• Part 1: The Society’s View of Material It Publishes
• Part 2: The Society’s View of Elders
• Part 3: Jehovah’s Witnesses Not a Sect?

---

Part 2

After personal experience and a good deal of research, I see little justification for the statement that elders today are “appointed by holy spirit.” The elder arrangement certainly has many benefits to the congregation, but it is the Governing Body or its representative that actually appoints elders to their positions, upon the recommendation of a local body of elders.^1, 2, 3 Now please don’t interpret what I’m saying here as anything other than precisely what I’m writing. I do not now, and never have, personally had problems with elders. I have had only good relations with elders, and have a great deal of respect for their position and the fine work they do. The material I’m presenting here concerns itself only with the question, Are elders directly appointed by holy spirit?

I am convinced that when the Society’s publications imply that elders are directly “appointed by holy spirit” they are on shaky ground. The situation that caused me to come to this conclusion arose about 1977, when an elder in the congregation I was attending attempted to have a ministerial servant disfellowshipped for breaking certain laws of the land. The body of elders was unable to come to a definite decision on the matter. The ministerial servant was privately reproved, and shortly afterwards the reproof was seen to have been in error and revoked. Some disputing arose in the congregation over the conduct of the matter. After many months, the body of elders realized it was unable to come to a decision, and consulted the Society. Elders from a nearby congregation were called in, and the matter was finally resolved by concluding that it never should have been brought up in the first place.

These events caused me to seriously question the idea that elders have been “appointed by holy spirit,” since it was clear to me that the elder who started the trouble couldn’t have been so appointed, and it was also clear that the other elders were not being directed by holy spirit in their handling of the case. I wrote to the Society explaining these things, and they forwarded my letter to the current circuit overseer. We eventually discussed the events and my questions at length. Finally he gave me a straight answer. He said, rather reluctantly, No, elders are not actually “appointed by holy spirit,” in the sense of Jehovah directly appointing a particular individual, but since the elder arrangement is Bible based, it could be said that elders in a general sense are “appointed by holy spirit.”

This explanation was enough to satisfy me at the time, but many Watchtower articles and other publications since then convinced me this was not the understanding the Society wanted Jehovah’s Witnesses to have. Rather, the thrust of the articles was to enhance the authority of congregational elders by saying that members of the congregation should be submissive to those “appointed by holy spirit,” and that criticizing or even questioning elders’ decisions was disloyal. Over a period of time it became clear to me that the Society is not particularly interested in the truth of this matter, but is interested only in seeing that people become and remain loyal Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Several quotations from a recent Watchtower should illustrate what I mean about the above point and about my concerns on “direct appointment by holy spirit.”⁴

Overseers have been spirit-appointed to care for the spiritual needs of the congregation.

Is this a direct appointment, or an indirect appointment? The statement implies action on the part of the holy spirit, not simply the idea that holy spirit inspired the Bible, and so on.

As Paul wrote: “Let the older men who preside in a fine way be reckoned worthy of double honor….”

Is this passage saying, “Let the older men, who preside in a fine way…”, or is it saying, “Let the older men who preside in a fine way…”? There is a world of difference in meaning with and without a comma. One implies all older men preside in a fine way, whereas the other implies some may and some may not.

….only those meeting Scriptural requirements are appointed as elders.

Is this only the goal? Or is this actually realized by the direct action of God?

….let us appreciate and accept the Bible-based direction of the elders as coming from God.

The phrase “as coming from God” is vague and non-committal. Is the Watchtower saying that when elders give direction, it is always Bible-based and always comes directly from God, or that when elders give direction, it is always Bible-based and therefore comes indirectly from God, or that when elders give direction, it should be Bible-based and we should view it as if it comes directly from God, or what? The example of the Keystone Cops elders I related above certainly was in the “what” category.

A detailed analysis of an article that purports to show why elders are “appointed by holy spirit” shows what I have found to be the usual methods in “proving” the point. This is from “Questions From Readers” on page 31 of the August 1, 1985 Watchtower. Let’s see if we can find the answer to the question raised.

How does the holy spirit work along with the modern-day Governing Body in the appointment of elders?

The apostle Paul told Christian elders from Ephesus: “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.” — Acts 20:28.

Clearly this does not answer the question that was raised. The next paragraph acknowledges this. Also note that Paul was speaking to the elders in Ephesus. The Society must make a clear connection between this and its assertion that elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses are the same as the elders in Ephesus. This connection should have been made in the present discussion — it should not have been assumed from unreferenced prior discussions.

Paul did not explain in detail how God’s spirit functioned in such appointments.

The Watchtower here actually admits that it does not know the answer to the question it has raised. But the article gamely presses on.

However, we can gain insight from what occurred when the first-century governing body considered a question concerning circumcision. In summarizing their conclusion, they wrote: “For the holy spiritand we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things.” (Acts 15:28) How did God’s spirit, his impersonal active force, contribute to the binding decision reached at that time?

So the early Christian governing body said that both it and the holy spirit made certain decisions, but it doesn’t say how the holy spirit helped the decision-making process.

Acts chapter 15 shows that first Paul and Barnabas outlined the question. Then a discussion took place. The apostle Peter related what had led up to baptism of the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius and his household. Peter explained that ‘God bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also.’ (Acts 15:7, 8; 10:9-48) Next Paul and Barnabas ‘related the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations.’ (Acts 15:12) Thus, by its operation on Peter, Cornelius, Paul, and Barnabas, the holy spirit indicated that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.

So in some unspecified manner the holy spirit caused events to occur, and caused the disciples to do and say various things, that resulted in the disciples’ knowing that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.

Yet there were additional operations of the spirit involved in that decision reached by the governing body. We can assume that they had asked for the help of the spirit on their deliberations. Such help may have moved the disciple James to recall the prophecy at Amos 9:11, 12, and to see its application. That prophecy had, of course, been written under the inspiration of the holy spirit. (Acts 15:13-20)

Note that “we assume they asked” and then “help may have moved the disciple to….” This is stated after the article says there “were additional operations of the holy spirit….”

Furthermore, “the apostles and older men in Jerusalem” who made up the governing body were Christians who were anointed with holy spirit and who manifested its operation in their lives, such as by producing its fruits. — Acts 15:2; Romans 8: 14-17; 1 Corinthians 7:40; Galatians 5:22,23.

Finally the article says something concrete.

So without there being some audible directive from heaven on the circumcision question, those of the governing body could accurately say that “the holy spirit” had led to their decision.

A fair conclusion.

It is similar with the appointment of Christian men to be elders, or overseers, in the congregations today.

The conclusion does not follow. Does this statement mean that all the events just described as happening with the early Christians in connection with the circumcision issue are similar to what happens with appointment of Christian men to be elders, or does it mean that this appointment is similar to what is about to be described in the rest of the paragraph? I hardly think it can be the first alternative, because who today is anointed by holy spirit with “tongues as if of fire” visible to others as a sign? Who gets personal visitations from the resurrected Jesus, as did Paul? Who gets dreams from God, as did Peter? Who performs miracles, as did some of the disciples? So the second alternative must be the choice: appointment of elders in the congregation today will be described in the rest of the paragraph.

Periodically a group of elders (likely including a traveling overseer of the Society) meet to consider recommending brothers for appointment as overseers. Those in the group have themselves been appointed as elders and they manifest in their lives that they have the spirit. Their discussion is opened with prayer for the spirit’s guidance.

Does this mean that the holy spirit somehow “tweaks” some of the elders’ minds during the discussion? If so, which ones, and how would anyone be able to tell?

Then, during the meeting, they analyze whether each brother being considered measures up to the qualifications for elders set out in the Bible, which have been recorded under the direction of holy spirit. (1 Timothy 3:2-7; Titus 1:5-9)

Setting up for the indirect appointment argument.

They also consider whether the brother evidences in his manner of life that he is “full of spirit and wisdom.” (Acts 6:3) If they agree that he is of that sort and meets the qualifications to a reasonable degree, their recommendation is forwarded to the spirit-designated Governing Body or its chosen representatives.

Where files are checked to see if there are any problems with this candidate the local elders don’t know about, and the Governing Body or its representatives pray over many similar matters and then record the appointment in their files.

Later the congregation may be informed that the brother has been appointed.

In summary, this paragraph states that the local elders talk about the candidate, pray about his appointment, and get the Governing Body’s official approval. The paragraph implies, but does not explicitly state, that because various pieces of the appointment process (the local elders, the traveling overseer, the Bible, the Governing Body and its representatives) have been put in place by God’s work through the holy spirit, the resulting appointment is also a result of God’s work through the holy spirit. But this process is not the same as direct action on God’s part, in the manner that Bible writers are said to be inspired by God. This was the essence of my complaint to the Society years ago, as a result of which the circuit overseer admitted to me that this is not what actually happens, but which fact the Society does everything in its power to conceal. You should note that the Society has not made a clear connection between the conclusion of the last paragraph and its assertion that elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses are the same as the elders of the first century. It has simply assumed this from unreferenced prior discussions.

The last paragraph, justifiably confident that readers will not have seen the subterfuge, continues:

Understandably, the appointed elder is still imperfect and may have limitations. But the apostles were imperfect, both before Jesus chose them and later when they served on the governing body. (Luke 9:46,54; 22:54-62; Galatians 2:11-14) They certainly did, though, have God’s spirit and were appointed under its guidance. Comparably, brothers and sisters can be confident that ‘the holy spirit has appointed the overseers, to shepherd the congregation.’ (Acts 20:28) It is regarding such men that the counsel is given: “Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out imitate their faith.” — Hebrews 13:7.

It should be evident by this point why I do not believe that the Society wants Jehovah’s Witnesses to understand that elders are not actually “appointed by holy spirit” in the sense of Jehovah directly appointing a particular elder. It should also be clear that this question is part of the reason I am unconvinced of the Society’s devotion to truth.

This is not a trivial point, whether elders are directly or indirectly appointed. Anyone may claim that if he uses the Bible as a basis for his decisions, then to the extent that he uses it correctly he is guided by God. But Witnesses would not accept this explanation from a Catholic for the reason that they believe the Catholic church is not directed by God in any manner. But the question of whether Catholics are or are not directed by God has no relevance to the Society’s claim that its use of the Bible as a basis for the elder arrangement, and elder’s correct use of the Bible, are bases for claiming guidance by God. By the same token the Society is not justified in implying that because elders may in a certain sense be indirectly “appointed by holy spirit” they are also directly “appointed by holy spirit.” If the Society wants to make this claim it should do so on grounds which are explicitly and clearly explained.

I would appreciate clarification of these points. In particular I should like to know whether what the circuit overseer told me years ago was correct at the time, or not.

I wish to comment on one more point concerning elders. Occasionally it is admitted that elders can do wrong or even make mistakes. For example, a Watchtower article said regarding how appropriate it is to obey authority in the Christian congregation:⁵

But it does not mean that we obey such authority without giving due consideration to what is being said. Why?

The apostle John offered this counsel: “Do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God”…. This does not mean that we should be suspicious of everything others tell us. Rather, we bear in mind Paul’s words at Galatians 1:8: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.”

Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.”….

Jehovah does not expect us to show blind credulity. He does not want from us the kind of obedience that a trainer gets from a beast with a bridle or a whip. That is why he told David: “Do not make yourselves like a horse or mule without understanding, whose spiritedness is to be curbed even by bridle or halter.” (Psalm 32:9) Rather, Jehovah has endowed us with thinking ability and discernment so that, based on understanding, we can choose to obey him.

In Japanese, the word kiku (to hear) includes the meaning not only of listening and obeying but also of judging whether a thing is good or bad. When someone speaks to us, it is good to listen in this sense so that when obeying, we do so not by mere credulity but by choice. When our heavenly Father, Jehovah God, speaks, whether through his Word, the Bible, or through his earthly organization, it is all the more important for us to listen and obey, thus proving that we are obedient worshipers who do not ignore the loving reminder: “Did you hear me?”

These are fine words and I agree wholeheartedly with them. However, the article says not a word about what one should do if one ever finds something coming from the Society that one cannot in good conscience agree with. And at no time have I seen published material stating what a publisher should do if an elder does something he thinks is unquestionably wrong, but that is not in the disfellowshipping category. The Society provides no formal outlet for dealing with this, and without a formal outlet, most Witnesses will act like horses or mules because that is the way the Society has trained them.

---

Footnotes

¹ Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 41, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

² Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making, p. 69, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1972.

³ The Watchtower, pp. 699-700, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, November 15, 1971.

⁴ ibid, pp. 20-25, September 15, 1989.

⁵ ibid, p. 30, April 1, 1988.

---

 

Alan Feuerbacher

[Editors: this content is included because it is relevant to those JWs who wish to remain associated with their JW congregations to understand why they will not usually be allowed to hold on to views that vary from the Watchtower itself. It is also related to the claim of being the “faithful slave” and “God’s only channel of communication” in our day. Most links within this article refer back to corior.blogspot.com]

From a series: “The Society’s View of Truth”

Index:

• Part 1: The Society’s View of Material It Publishes
• Part 2: The Society’s View of Elders
• Part 3: Jehovah’s Witnesses Not a Sect?

---

Part 1

Introduction

At this point it should be clear that I am not convinced the Society is always concerned with truth. In the essay on the Flood I have documented how the Society ignores geological evidence it is unable to explain, as though by ignoring it the evidence would go away. By ignoring this evidence the Society makes it impossible for Witnesses to defend their beliefs when anyone challenges them on the geological evidence. In the essay on sin, imperfection and the ransom sacrifice I have shown how the Society has used circumlocution to avoid having to address sticky problems related to God’s love, justice and mercy. This refusal to directly address issues of fundamental importance leaves Witnesses unprepared against charges that God is unloving toward mankind based on these issues.

It is as if the Society feels that by never discussing contrary evidence, doubts will not be induced in the faithful. The Society 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. Doesn’t the Society think Witnesses are intelligent enough to handle things that aren’t nailed down solidly? The Society seems to feel that only it is qualified to think seriously about fundamental religious topics. It is quite clear that the responsibility of the average Witness is to bring his thinking in line with whatever the Society happens to have most recently published.

The February 15, 1981 Watchtower said on page 19:

Jesus’ disciples wrote many letters to Christian congregations, to persons who were already in “the way of the truth.” But nowhere do we read that those brothers first, in a skeptical frame of mind, checked the Scriptures to make certain that those letters had Scriptural backing, that the writers really knew what they were talking about.

In view of what I’ve found in the course of thorough research on my own, one clearly should check things out with a skeptical frame of mind, because in so many cases the Society’s writers clearly do not know “what they are talking about.”

This essay deals with a few more issues related to what I perceive as the Society’s attempts to muddle certain issues. I give examples showing simple misinterpretation, presenting only supporting evidence while ignoring contrary evidence, and wholesale obfuscation.

All of this may be due to simple ignorance on my part. If so I should like to see why, in enough detail that only an unreasonable person would be unconvinced. Only specific coverage of details will convince me the Society places any value on truth — general arguments are of no value. I have often heard Witnesses say (ultimately based on statements from the Society) that scientific reasoning is of no value, as it “comes from men, not God.” There is something to be said for this, when it comes to looking at conclusions drawn from evidence, but this argument is usually applied to anything that appears to conflict with what the Society says on scientific matters, even when the conflict is due to observations that do not require much by way of conclusions, other than that one can see, feel, hear, trust one’s own senses, and think.

To illustrate what I mean, if you remember from the essay on The Flood, there were a series of floods called the Missoula floods, in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, that were of limited extent. That they were of limited extent, and not global, is a conclusion drawn from the observations that soil and bedrock were stripped away only up to a certain elevation, and the elevation decreased smoothly along the Columbia River from eastern Washington to its mouth near Astoria, Oregon. Geologists concluded that the source of the flood was the valley of the Clark Fork River in Montana, because of the observations that stripping of soil and bedrock occurred at elevations that were greatest near the mouth of the Clark Fork Valley, that giant ripple ridges were found on the floor of the valley, especially in the narrows, that wave cut benches were found on mountainsides throughout the Clark Fork Valley, and other such phenomena.

Suppose a water hose is turned loose on bare dirt, and the water strips out a little valley and runs off, and then the hose is taken away. No one would question the conclusion that someone turned on a hose, based on the observation that a little valley existed where none ought to be. Similar basic reasoning, based on geological observations, shows the Missoula floods occurred. The observations are too clear and the conclusions too simple, for a pat answer like “scientists make mistakes, so maybe the flood evidence that is being interpreted as local really points to Noah’s Flood.” One does not have to be a scientist to see what happened, any more than one has to be a scientist to figure out a hose had been turned on.

The point I’m making is that much of the evidence I’ve presented in these essays is of this simple nature. That is why I’ve made it so clear throughout that general arguments are of little value in proving a specific point, and so are of little value in proving that the conclusions I’ve drawn from all the observations I’ve noted are in error. The conclusions are too simple to be swept away by rhetorical generalities. That is why I’ve often said “I’ve been forced to conclude….” My present view is well expressed by what Steve Allen said in the introduction to his book Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, about his difficulties with his religious upbringing:¹

The troubling questions arose from one source only: my intellect. To the extent that one has some respect for the rules of evidence, one cannot ignore these moments when a biblically based religious opinion comes into flat contradiction with either factual evidence or logical reasoning.

Is it ever reasonable to ask someone to suppress his intellect or to ignore facts?

The Society’s View Of Material It Publishes

A major point I have trouble with is the Society’s attitude about material it publishes and the way it expects Jehovah’s Witnesses to view that material — the topic of “adjustments in understanding,” if you will. On one hand, the Society often writes articles from the point of view that it expects Witnesses to accept the material as if it came directly from God. For example, the United in Worship book asks several questions:²

Do we truly appreciate how Jehovah is directing his visible organization?

When we appreciatively accept the spiritual provisions that come through the ‘slave’ class and its Governing body, for whom are we showing respect? But what if we were to speak disparagingly of these?

Then the reader is referred to Luke 10:16, which says:

He that listens to you listens to me [too]. Moreover, he that disregards me disregards [also] him that sent me forth.

Although it is not directly stated, 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 Society’s 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”:³

Their duties include receiving and passing on to all of Jehovah’s earthly servants spiritual food at the proper time.

Another paragraph says:⁴

How vital it is for everyone in God’s family to submit loyally to the teachings and arrangements of the Great Theocrat, Jehovah, and his King-Son, Christ Jesus, as transmitted through the ‘faithful slave’ on earth!

A third paragraph says:⁵

Jehovah has provided a goodly quantity of aids to Bible understanding in the form of publications….

Another Watchtower article said:⁶

“One body” is the Christian congregation, of which Jesus is the “head.”…. The individual anointed members of this united congregation would all receive the same spiritual food. To that end, their “master” appointed a collective “faithful steward” class, the body of anointed Christians on the earth since Pentecost 33 C.E. Since the “master” found the remaining ones of this body faithfully and discreetly giving out “food supplies” when he arrived for inspection in 1919, he appointed them “over all his belongings.”…. The facts show that since 1919 this “steward” has faithfully cared for these “belongings.”

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 Korah⁷ or by Miriam and Aaron.⁸

The Society appears to believe that it is actually inspired by God, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. According to Webster’s 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:

The men used to write the Scriptures therefore cooperated with the operation of Jehovah’s holy spirit. They were willing and submissive to God’s guidance…, eager to know God’s will and leading….

In many cases they had certain goals in mind or were responding to an evident need…, and God directed them so that what they wrote coincided with and fulfilled his purpose…. As spiritual men, their hearts and minds were attuned to God’s will, they ‘had the mind of Christ’ and so were not setting down mere human wisdom nor a “vision of their own heart,” as false prophets did [italics added].

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:

The translators who have a fear and love of the divine Author of the Holy Scriptures feel especially a responsibility toward Him to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible…. It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that the committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation…. In releasing it for publication we do so with a deep sense of gratitude to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, who has thus privileged us and in whose spirit we have trusted to co-operate with us in this worthy work [italics added].

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.^{9, 10, 11, 12} Through a process of searching the scriptures, a clearer understanding is reached on certain matters, and adjustments are made.¹³ This searching process is illustrated in the article “The Path of the Righteous Does Keep Getting Brighter,”¹⁴ which compares the searching to the tacking of a sailboat and to the progress of scientific truth.

I do not see how the two points of view can be reconciled. One viewpoint says essentially that as the “faithful slave” searches the scriptures, its understanding increases,¹⁵ and this increased understanding is communicated to readers of Watchtower publications. The other viewpoint 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 view what they are reading as coming directly from Jehovah, unaltered by the channel. On the one hand, readers are exhorted to believe that there is a “body of truth” to which “adjustments have been made,”¹⁶ that the adjustment process shows how Jehovah’s Witnesses are “lining up with ‘Jehovah’s mind’ as now revealed.”¹⁷ 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.”¹⁸

I think the first viewpoint must be correct. The Society does its best to interpret the scriptures correctly but sometimes is in error. But if that is the case, then the Society cannot make statements such as quoted in footnotes 2, 3 and 4 above, and still expect to remain credible.

One argument that attempts to justify such statements says essentially, “to the extent that the Society’s publications conform to God’s Word, it can be said that the ‘faithful slave’ is transmitting Jehovah’s 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 Society’s publications conform to God’s Word,….” But if Jehovah is to decide, then the issue is still undecided from any reader’s 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 “God’s channel of communication” goes something like this: “The way Jehovah God has prospered the activities carried on under [the faithful and discreet slave’s] direction can leave no doubt in the minds of dedicated Christians as to Jehovah God’s approval¹⁹ being upon it.”²⁰ Well, even if those who direct the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses are indeed “the faithful slave” and they have Jehovah’s approval, that approval still does not warrant the conclusion that Jehovah makes adjustments to the body of knowledge the Society has called “Present Truth.” God’s 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:

“the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God….”

Let me point out some examples of what I’ve been saying. Back in the spring of 1971 I was quite surprised when I read the Watchtower articles about the heart,²¹ which contained statements such as:²²

Where and what is your heart? You may say, What heart are you talking about? You know you have a heart in your chest, one that is pumping blood…. But do you have another “heart” in your head, a “figurative heart”? Is it part of your brain….? No! The brain, in which the mind resides, is one thing and the heart in our thorax, with its power of motivation, is another thing…. The Bible does not speak of a symbolic or spiritual heart in contradistinction to the fleshly or literal heart, just as it does not speak of a symbolic mind, and thus we do not want to make the mistake of viewing the literal heart as merely a fleshly pump as does orthodox physiology today. Most psychiatrists and psychologists…. [look] upon the word “heart” merely as a figure of speech….

I was even more surprised when 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?

What are we to understand, then, by the word “heart”?…. What an amazing number of different functions and capabilities are ascribed to the heart! Do all of these reside in the literal heart? That could hardly be so…. in nearly a thousand other references to “heart” in the Bible, “heart” is obviously used in a figurative sense…. obviously, a distinction must be drawn between the heart organ and the figurative heart.²³

This information is not new. Not one thing was stated in the 1984 article that was not known in 1971. Obviously some strong minded individual, who appears to have written numerous other articles (I recognize the writing style), managed to convince enough other people of his ideas on the heart that he got his ideas into print.

As another example of the Society’s 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”.²⁴ The entire arrangement was implied to be “God’s doing.”²⁵ 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 1983.²⁶ Again I ask, did Jehovah learn from experience and then make this “adjustment to the body of truth” — or was it the Society?

In the November 15, 1967 Watchtower the Society declared its opposition to organ transplants. The section “Questions from Readers” posed the question of how Jehovah’s Witnesses were to view transplants, and the Society gave its official answer:²⁷

Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?….

Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people…. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken….

…. Those who submit to such [transplant] operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic…. It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint. It would be well, though, for Christians faced with a decision in this regard to consider the indication as to God’s viewpoint presented in the Scriptures….

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.

The Society proceeded “to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint” in a rather shrill 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 Jehovah’s Witnesses was presented on page 21, under the sub-heading, “The Scriptural Aspect,” which presented no scriptures. This was:

Not to be overlooked are the religious, the Scriptural issues involved. There are those, such as the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism; and is not the utilizing of the flesh of another human for one’s own life cannibalistic?

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:²⁸

…. It may be argued…. that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food…. Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation…. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision…. The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

The June 22, 1982 Awake! reiterated this position, stating:

The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.

This is quite a flip-flop, going from the view that organ transplants are cannibalism and akin to murder, to it being a personal decision. Where is the guiding hand of God in all this?

I think that from these examples, and from many other instances where “adjustments to understanding” have been made, the only conclusion is 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.”

We should have confidence in the channel God is using.²⁹

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” ought to be abhorrent to a lover of truth. They 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 have no qualms about using such abhorrent terms to try to convince them that it is “God’s 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. And from the 1984 article I can only conclude that the Society is not particularly interested in having its readers know it has changed its mind. There is not a word mentioned 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. In fact 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 Society’s 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. And this is invisible. Armageddon was again predicted for 1925, but that fell through, too. By the time the Society made near-predictions for the year 1975, it had learned from its earlier mistakes, so that it did everything but directly state that year would bring Armageddon. Were these things, and many others like them, done by the hand of men or the hand of God?

I certainly accept that, to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, one must conform to certain standards, but the Society is demanding too much when it requires someone 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 Governing Body claims that it as a body was commissioned by God, and that its members are “appointed by holy spirit.” But when it comes right down to it, the members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses can only trace their appointment back to Charles Russell³⁰in the late 1800s, and no amount of logical squirming can get away from this. The article “A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation,” under the sub-title “How the Governing Body Came to Exist,”³¹manages to avoid being specific about its theme and the point I just raised, no less than ten times, 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 in all this dissembling does the article show why things are evident, refer the reader to what facts it is talking about, or say anything that it could possibly be pinned down on. It is a masterful work of subterfuge, and the best example I have ever seen illustrating how to use the passive voice to avoid hard explanations. 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 because they come from On High.

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 Jehovah’s 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. I have personally experienced this many times. 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 answer. It is also not easy to put one’s thoughts into writing clearly and understandably. Understanding often comes best within the give and take of conversation.

I would certainly appreciate a clear response on the issues I’ve raised above. They can be condensed to three conclusions:

1. The “faithful slave” is fallible.

2. For all practical purposes the “faithful slave” requires Jehovah’s Witnesses to act as if it were infallible.

3. For all practical purposes Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to converse with their fellows on controversial topics.

---

Footnotes

¹ Steve Allen, Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, p. xxiii, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1990.

² United in Worship of the Only True God, p. 123, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

³ The Watchtower, p. 17, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, June 1, 1982.

⁴ ibid, p. 17.

⁵ ibid, p. 24.

⁶ ibid, p. 19, September 15, 1983.

⁷ ibid, p. 13, December 1, 1981.

⁸ ibid, p. 17, June 1, 1982.

⁹ ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.

¹⁰ ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.

¹¹ ibid, p. 20,27, December 1, 1981.

¹² ibid, p. 26, January 1, 1972.

¹³ ibid, p. 701, November 15, 1971.

¹⁴ ibid, pp. 26-31, December 1, 1981.

¹⁵ ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.

¹⁶ ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.

¹⁷ ibid, p. 13, September 1, 1984.

¹⁸ ibid, p. 25, December 15, 1981.

¹⁹ Members of the Assemblies of God churches claim virtually the same thing. They have even more basis than do Jehovah’s Witnesses to claim prosperity, as they have gone from almost no members in 1920 to more than 20 million in 1991. Mormons have increased from from a few thousand in the early 1800s to some 5 million today. Seventh-Day Adventists have increased to some 3 million since the mid 1800s. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ figure of some 4 million publishers is right in the middle. As to fast rates of growth, the Unification Church started in 1954 and had 2 million members by 1981. The Transcendental Meditation Church started in 1958 and had 2 million by 1981. The Divine Light Mission went to 8 million between 1960 and 1981. The real show stopper is the Church of Scientology, starting in 1954 and having 20 million members by 1981.

²⁰ ibid, p. 18, February 15, 1981.

²¹ ibid, pp. 133-152, March 1, 1971.

²² ibid, p. 134, March 1, 1971.

²³ ibid, pp. 3-7, September 1, 1984.

²⁴ ibid, p. 685, 691, November 15, 1971.

²⁵ 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 250, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1974.

²⁶ Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 41, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

²⁷ The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 702-704.

²⁸ The Watchtower, op cit, p. 31.

²⁹ The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 18-19, February 15, 1981.

³⁰ ibid, p. 760, December 15, 1971.

³¹ ibid, p. 760, 761.

---

 

Alan Feuerbacher

[Editors: this content is included because it is relevant to those JWs who wish to remain associated with their JW congregations to understand why they will not usually be allowed to hold on to views that vary from the Watchtower itself. It is also related to the claim of being the “faithful slave” and “God’s only channel of communication” in our day.]
Jehovah’s Witnesses like to think that their organization goes entirely by the Bible, and that because of following the Bible they are not tied to following every “jot and tittle” of some “Law.” They contrast themselves with the first-century Pharisees who were indeed so concerned.

This essay shows that in the matter of the relation between the individual Jehovah’s Witness and “the congregation,” the Watchtower Society has made and enforces a number of legalistic rules. Furthermore, these rules are not clearly stated to people who become Jehovah’s Witnesses. Instead, the prospective convert is given a sanitized and idealized view, so that if he gets into difficulty with the congregation the real rules come as a shock.

We will examine these matters by looking at the baptismal vows Jehovah’s Witnesses have made when joining the religion. Until 1985, these vows were seen as a dedication of the individual to his God, whereas in 1985 the Society changed them into an agreement to follow the rules and regulations of the Watchtower Society.

According to statements published by the Watchtower Society, Christians are not dedicated to an organization. From the October 1, 1966 Watchtower, pp. 603-4:

Jehovah is the giver of life. “For with you is the source of life.” (Ps. 36:9) We cannot keep everlasting life in view without staying close to Jehovah, the source of life…. This is what we mean when we dedicate our lives to Jehovah. We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicated ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah.

The January 15, 1970 Watchtower, pp. 37-41, asked the question, “Which Comes First — Your Church or God?” Speaking mainly to Catholics and Protestants, the article said, in part:

With some, God comes first and their church is merely a means used to worship him. With others, their church has become an end in itself, taking priority over God and his Word, the Bible. Where do you stand? In your own heart and mind, which comes first — your church or God?

The article then described what the French weekly news magazine, Le Nouvel Observateur, said about three categories of believers:

“The first man is the one who feels at ease within the traditional structures of the Church; the second would like to see some changes made in these structures; as for the ‘third man,’ he has left the Church, but quietly, without making a fuss. He still believes in the Gospel values, but he expects no more help from the Church. He has quit, and the Church’s problem has ceased to interest him, once and for all.”

The article went on to say, under the sub-title “Questions for the ‘First Man'”:

The “first man” represents the believers who remain faithful to their church out of loyalty to the religion they were brought up to believe in. Their attitude is: Right or wrong, it is my religion! Is that the way you feel? If so, you are certainly a loyal person. But to whom do you owe the greater loyalty — to your church, or to God? With so much disbelief rife throughout the earth, you are to be commended for maintaining your faith, but where should your faith be placed — in a religious organization, or in God? Why do you go to church? Basically, is it not because you believe in God? Do atheists go to church? Is not the very purpose of churchgoing to worship God and gain his approval? So if it became clear that your church was not fulfilling its basic purpose, where would your first duty lie?

“But,” you may reply, “how can one tell if one’s church is fulfilling its purpose?” Well, is your church drawing more and more people to God and helping them to serve him? Or are its best and most sincere members disappointed, disillusioned and disheartened?….

The article next shows how certain practices merit God’s displeasure, and then says:

Furthermore, to be pleasing to God, should not a church teach the truth?…. “God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” — John 4:21-24, JB.

Notice that worship in “truth” is a must! It is therefore impossible to worship God acceptably without a deep love of the truth. The true Christian religion must be founded on the truth, not on traditions, creeds, dogmas and articles of faith that are often hard to understand because they defy all the faculties of reasoning with which God created us. Now what is the Christian standard for measuring truth? Is it not the Bible? So if there should prove to be contradiction between the tenets of a church that claims to be Christian and the plain statement of truth found in the Holy Scriptures, which should come first in your worship — your church or God’s Word, the Bible? What will be your answer if you sincerely desire to be “the kind of worshipper the Father wants”?

The next sub-title was “Reasoning Things Out with the ‘Second Man'”, which said:

The “second man” mentioned in the Nouvel Observateur represents those Catholics and Protestants who stay with their church because they do not know where else to go. They have been taught that their church represents God, and they do not want to turn away from him. They disapprove of many church practices or doctrines, but they hope to reform their church from within.

Typical of these are the 744 French Catholics who, in November 1968, sent a long open letter to the pope. In it they stated: “Today the Christian needs to live in a ‘true’ church … Therefore all that is false, contrary to the Gospel and scandalous within the Church today wounds the Christian.” Then followed a long list of grievances against the Catholic Church and its current teachings and practices. Yet, toward the end, these Catholics expressed their unconditional adherence to their church by alluding to John 6:68 and stating: “Who could we go to? In her [the Roman Catholic Church] we find the One who has words of eternal life.”

But can Christ dwell in a church where so much is admittedly “false, contrary to the Gospel and scandalous”? Did not the apostle Paul write: “What participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?”….

Thus, honest Catholics and Protestants are beginning to recognize the necessity of choosing between the church and Christ, the church and the Gospel. What about all you ‘second men,’ who hope to reform your church from within? Which comes first with you — your church or God? Indeed, what is the church of God? After the words quoted above, Paul wrote to sincere anointed Christians: “For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people….”….

What example did Paul himself set?…. Did Paul remain within the traditional church, the Jews’ religion, and attempt to reform it from the inside? No! He considered that the only way to worship and serve God acceptably henceforth was to ‘go out from among’ the Pharisees and become a part of God’s true church which, at the time, was a small despised sect….

Consequently, if your church teaches and does things that are contrary to the Bible and displeasing to God, your duty as a Christian is clear: Imitate Paul and ‘serve the Father and your God’ within the true religion which, not surprisingly, the churches often “call a heresy.”

The final sub-title, “Reassuring News for the ‘Third Man'” said:

This brings us to the “third man,” representing the disillusioned who have ceased practicing their religion altogether, yet still maintaining their belief in God. Although this article is not written primarily for them, since they have already chosen to abandon the church systems of Christendom, nevertheless we have some good news for them.

The article then concludes with an invitation for the ‘third man’ to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

While the Society has said that Christians do not dedicate themselves to an organization, it tells Witnesses that salvation does not come apart from the Watchtower organization. For example, the March 1, 1979 Watchtower stated (p. 18):

Devoted Witnesses have kept their faith in Jehovah’s organization. They know which one of all organizations on earth the Almighty God has used to give the greatest witness to his name and kingdom in all Christian history… Is there any cause for us to lose faith in Jehovah’s visible organization because of mounting difficulties in this world? Those who believe that Jehovah will never desert his faithful witnesses answer, “Absolutely not!” In demonstration of such faith, we will keep on sticking to it and working with it without slacking the hand. Our unwavering faith will be rewarded with victory and the crown of life!

In line with these sentiments, in 1985 the Society changed the baptismal vows such that new Jehovah’s Witnesses dedicated themselves, not only to God as had been done for a century before, but to the Watchtower Society itself. This is evident from the baptismal vows published up through 1985:

Baptismal questions from the August 1, 1966 Watchtower, p. 465:

(1) Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?

(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?

Baptismal questions from the May 15, 1970 Watchtower, p. 309:

(1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and through his ransomer, Christ Jesus?

(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God’s Word as his holy spirit makes it plain?

Baptismal questions from the May 1, 1973 Watchtower, p. 280:

(1) Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?

(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?

The newest baptismal questions, from the June 1, 1985 Watchtower:

On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?

Contrast these latest questions with the statements above, from the October 1, 1966 Watchtower.

Finally, compare these statements to those made in the October 15, 1992 Watchtower, p. 19:

So for the Christian, baptism following dedication establishes an intimate relationship with Jehovah God, his Son Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit…

By recognizing God’s authority, we draw close to him and enter into a relationship with him… We become God’s property as his slaves, bought with the price of Jesus Christ’s ransom sacrifice… The apostle Paul also told first-century Christians that they belonged to Jesus Christ, not to any men who might have taken the truth to them… Baptism in the name of the Son implies recognizing this fact, accepting Jesus as “the way and the truth and the life.”…

At the time of dedication and baptism, therefore, we need to reflect prayerfully on what is involved in our new relationship. It requires submission to the will of God, demonstrated in the example and ransom provision of Jesus Christ, to be carried out through holy spirit as it directs all of God’s servants in love and unity worldwide.

This last is a most unusual statement in that the “faithful and discreet slave” is not mentioned as directing the work. In any case, the Society has managed to get newer members to, in effect, join a worldly club from which their membership can be terminated at any time by the Society (disfellowshipping) while at the same time convincing these newcomers that they have only dedicated themselves to their Creator. Can any actions be more devious?

The fact that the Society changed the baptismal vows to protect itself legally is shown by the letters that it sends out to people who threaten with legal action for trying to enforce on them what they thought was a dedication to Jehovah alone. One such letter read:

From the date of your baptism and your joining the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, you professed the Christian faith, agreed to adhere to the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses and agreed to submit to the rules and procedures of the ecclesiastical government of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Talk about legalism! It is obvious that a great many people would never have become Jehovah’s Witnesses in the first place if the possible consequences to them were spelled out as above.

To further show the Society’s legalistic view of baptism, here are some excerpts from a lengthy letter written in the early 1990s by a Watchtower attorney, Philip Brumley, to a person who questioned the Society’s legal right to disfellowship him:

I represent Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the parent organization of the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the United States. By means of your numerous letters and telephone calls to this office, I have been informed that your membership in the organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses was terminated when you were disfellowshiped from the English Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, [xyztown], Massachusetts….

The relationship between a congregation and its member is consensual as to both parties. A congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a voluntary association. Both the member and the congregation have a right to determine if they will remain united. The member has the right to disassociate himself or herself from the congregation. The congregation also has the right to separate from a member if it is determined by an ecclesiastical tribunal, which Jehovah’s Witnesses call a judicial committee, that a member is not conducting his or her life according to the tenets of the religion.

A. If a member no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then the member may disassociate himself or herself from the congregation. The term “disassociation” applies to the action taken by a person who, although being a baptized member of the congregation, repudiates his or her Christian standing as such, rejecting the congregation and stating that he or she no longer wants to be recognized or known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A brief announcement would be made to inform the congregation that the person has voluntarily disassociated himself or herself from the congregation.

B. If a member is charged with wrongdoing and wishes to continue to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then such one should submit to the hearings of the judicial committee. If charges of wrongdoing are brought to the attention of the body of elders of one’s congregation, then they investigate the charges. If it is established that there may be substance to the charges and evidence is produced showing that a serious sin actually may have been committed, the congregation’s body of elders will assign a judicial committee, consisting usually of three elders, to handle the matter….

II. APPLICABLE SECULAR LAW

C. Relation Between the Congregations and its members. It is axiomatic that the essence of the relationship of a religious society with its members is held by the courts to be the agreement of the parties, and generally, a profession of faith, adherence to the doctrine of the religious society and submission to its government. 76 C.J.S. Religious Societies 11 (1952). A party having voluntarily assented to becoming a member of a congregation thereby subjects himself or herself to the existing rules and procedures of said congregation and cannot deny their existence. All who unite themselves to such a voluntary religious organization do so with the implied consent to this government and are bound to submit to it….

Since you did not disassociate yourself from the organization, then under the law you gave implied consent to its government, subjecting yourself to the existing rules and procedures and being bound legally to submit to it. The theocratic government of the congregation to which you legally submitted includes specifically the legal agency of Jehovah’s Witnesses, known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and all their duly appointed representatives, including the elders of the congregation with which you were associated. The rules and procedures which you subjected yourself to include those of the judicial committee arrangement set forth in detail above….

Note that the above legalese says that once a person joins the Witnesses, he has only two choices if he wants to leave: disfellowshipping and disassociation. These two choices are enforced by American law. However, even if the Watchtower lawyer has correctly stated matters, he has neglected the case of the child who gets baptized and submits to “ecclesiastical law.” By law minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts. Therefore by law, people who got baptized when they were children have a third legally enforceable option when they leave: to simply quit, without disassociating and without submitting to a judicial committee, or “ecclesiastical tribunal.” Of course, the Society will not tell people about this.

From the above extensive discussion by the Watchtower attorney (the complete letter contained dozens of pages) it is evident that people who become Jehovah’s Witnesses are not fully informed of the rules and obligations they will be expected to obey. For example, a rank-and-file member is expected to fully obey an elder, since elders are “duly appointed representatives” of the Watchtower Society.

The Society has given statements to the news media indicating that if a person wants to leave the Witnesses, all he has to do is quietly fade away and life will go on unchanged. The above letter from Mr. Brumley proves that these public statements are pure lies.

From the material presented in this essay it should be clear that the Jehovah’s Witnesses parent organization, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, is a thoroughly legalistic, Pharasaic and deceptive organization. It recruits members under false pretenses and bullies them into remaining by deceptive, legalistic means. No one who wishes to be a good Christian should tolerate these practices.

 

---

 

Alan Feuerbacher

Overview:

• A Firm Guiding Hand
• Inspiration
• Provisional Infallibility
• Conforming to Scripture
• Evidence of Approval
• Present Truth: The Heart
• Present Truth: Elder Arrangements
• Present Truth: Organ Transplants
• Inspired or Merely Well-Intentioned?
• Personal Musings
• The Basis for Authority
• The Effect on the Rank-and-File Member
• Conclusions

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:

Jesus’ disciples wrote many letters to Christian congregations, to persons who were already in “the way of the truth.” But nowhere do we read that those brothers first, in a skeptical frame of mind, checked the Scriptures to make certain that those letters had Scriptural backing, that the writers really knew what they were talking about.

A Firm Guiding Hand

The sentiments expressed here illustrate the Society’s attitude about material it publishes and the way it expects Jehovah’s 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

Do we truly appreciate how Jehovah is directing his visible organization?

When we appreciatively accept the spiritual provisions that come through the “slave” class and its Governing body, for whom are we showing respect? But what if we were to speak disparagingly of these?

The reader is then referred to Luke 10:16, which says:

He that listens to you listens to me [too]. Moreover, he that disregards me disregards [also] him that sent me forth.

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 Society’s 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

Their duties include receiving and passing on to all of Jehovah’s earthly servants spiritual food at the proper time.

Another paragraph says:³

How vital it is for everyone in God’s family to submit loyally to the teachings and arrangements of the Great Theocrat, Jehovah, and his King-Son, Christ Jesus, as transmitted through the “faithful slave” on earth!

A third paragraph says:⁴

Jehovah has provided a goodly quantity of aids to Bible understanding in the form of publications…

Another Watchtower article said:⁵

“One body” is the Christian congregation, of which Jesus is the “head.”…. The individual anointed members of this united congregation would all receive the same spiritual food. To that end, their “master” appointed a collective “faithful steward” class, the body of anointed Christians on the earth since Pentecost 33 C.E. Since the “master” found the remaining ones of this body faithfully and discreetly giving out “food supplies” when he arrived for inspection in 1919, he appointed them “over all his belongings.”…. The facts show that since 1919 this “steward” has faithfully cared for these “belongings.”

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 Korah⁶ or by Miriam and Aaron.⁷

Inspiration

The Society appears to believe that it is actually inspired by God.

According to Webster’s 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:

The men used to write the Scriptures therefore cooperated with the operation of Jehovah’s holy spirit. They were willing and submissive to God’s guidance…, eager to know God’s will and leading…. In many cases they had certain goals in mind or were responding to an evident need…, and God directed them so that what they wrote coincided with and fulfilled his purpose…. As spiritual men, their hearts and minds were attuned to God’s will, they “had the mind of Christ” and so were not setting down mere human wisdom nor a “vision of their own heart,” as false prophets did.

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:

The translators who have a fear and love of the divine Author of the Holy Scriptures feel especially a responsibility toward Him to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible…. It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that the committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation…. In releasing it for publication we do so with a deep sense of gratitude to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, who has thus privileged us and in whose spirit we have trusted to co-operate with us in this worthy work.

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 scientific truth.

Provisional Infallibility

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 Jehovah’s Witnesses are “lining up with Jehovah’s 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 Society’s publications conform to God’s Word, it can be said that the “faithful slave” is transmitting Jehovah’s 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 Society’s publications conform to God’s Word,….” But if Jehovah is to decide, then the issue is still undecided from any reader’s 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.

Evidence of Approval

Another argument the Society uses to show it is “God’s channel of communication” goes something like this: “The way Jehovah God has prospered the activities carried on under [the faithful and discreet slave’s] direction can leave no doubt in the minds of dedicated Christians as to Jehovah God’s approval being upon it.”^18, 19

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. God’s 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:

the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God….

Present Truth: The Heart

In the spring of 1971, several Watchtower articles about the heart,^20, 21 contained statements such as:

Where and what is your heart? You may say, What heart are you talking about? You know you have a heart in your chest, one that is pumping blood…. But do you have another “heart” in your head, a “figurative heart”? Is it part of your brain….? No! The brain, in which the mind resides, is one thing and the heart in our thorax, with its power of motivation, is another thing…. The Bible does not speak of a symbolic or spiritual heart in contradistinction to the fleshly or literal heart, just as it does not speak of a symbolic mind, and thus we do not want to make the mistake of viewing the literal heart as merely a fleshly pump as does orthodox physiology today. Most psychiatrists and psychologists…. [look] upon the word “heart” merely as a figure of speech….

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?

What are we to understand, then, by the word “heart”?…. What an amazing number of different functions and capabilities are ascribed to the heart! Do all of these reside in the literal heart? That could hardly be so…. in nearly a thousand other references to “heart” in the Bible, “heart” is obviously used in a figurative sense…. obviously, a distinction must be drawn between the heart organ and the figurative heart.²²

Note the sudden change from “literal” to “figurative”.

Present Truth: Elder Arrangements

As another example of the Society’s 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”.²³ The entire arrangement was implied to be “God’s doing.”²⁴ 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 1983.²⁵

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 Jehovah’s Witnesses were to view transplants, and the Society gave its official answer:²⁶

Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?….

Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people…. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken….

…. Those who submit to such [transplant] operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic…. It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint. It would be well, though, for Christians faced with a decision in this regard to consider the indication as to God’s viewpoint presented in the Scriptures….

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.

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 Jehovah’s Witnesses was presented on page 21, under the sub-heading, “The Scriptural Aspect”, which presented no scriptures. This was:

Not to be overlooked are the religious, the Scriptural issues involved. There are those, such as the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism; and is not the utilizing of the flesh of another human for one’s own life cannibalistic?

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:²⁷

…. It may be argued…. that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food…. Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation…. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision….

The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

The June 22, 1982 Awake! reiterated this position, stating:

The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.

Thus, the Society’s 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.”

We should have confidence in the channel God is using.²⁸

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 “God’s channel of communication.”

Personal Musings

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 Society’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 Jehovah’s Witnesses can only trace their appointment back to Charles Russell²⁹ 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”,³⁰ 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 Jehovah’s 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 answer.

Conclusions

I would certainly appreciate a clear response on the issues I’ve raised above. They can be condensed to three conclusions:

1. The “faithful slave” is fallible.
2. For all practical purposes the “faithful slave” requires Jehovah’s Witnesses to act as if it were infallible.
3. For all practical purposes Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to converse with their fellows on controversial topics.

---

Footnotes

¹ United in Worship of the Only True God, p. 123, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

² The Watchtower, p. 17, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, June 1, 1982.

³ ibid, p. 17.

⁴ ibid, p. 24.

⁵ ibid, p. 19, September 15, 1983.

⁶ ibid, p. 13, December 1, 1981.

⁷ ibid, p. 17, June 1, 1982.

⁸ ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.

⁹ ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.

¹⁰ ibid, p. 20,27, December 1, 1981.

¹¹ ibid, p. 26, January 1, 1972.

¹² ibid, p. 701, November 15, 1971.

¹³ ibid, pp. 26-31, December 1, 1981.

¹⁴ ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.

¹⁵ ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.

¹⁶ ibid, p. 13, September 1, 1984.

¹⁷ ibid, p. 25, December 15, 1981.

¹⁸ ibid, p. 18, February 15, 1981.

¹⁹ Members of the Assemblies of God churches claim virtually the same thing. They have even more basis than do Jehovah’s Witnesses to claim prosperity, as they have gone from almost no members in 1900 to more than 100 million in 1995. Mormons have increased from a few thousand in the early 1800s to some 5 million today. Seventh-Day Adventists have increased to some 3 million since the mid 1800s. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ figure of some 5 million publishers is right in the middle. As for fast rates of growth, the Unification Church started in 1954 and had 2 million members by 1981. The Transcendental Meditation Church started in 1958 and had 2 million by 1981. The Divine Light Mission went to 8 million between 1960 and 1981. The top performer is the Church of Scientology, starting in 1954 and having 20 million members by 1981.

²⁰ibid, pp. 133-152, March 1, 1971.

²¹ ibid, p. 134, March 1, 1971.

²² ibid, pp. 3-7, September 1, 1984.

²³ ibid, p. 685, 691, November 15, 1971.

²⁴ 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 250, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1974.

²⁵ Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 41, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

²⁶ The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 702-704.

²⁷ The Watchtower, op cit, p. 31.

²⁸ The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 18-19, February 15, 1981.

²⁹ ibid, p. 760, December 15, 1971.

³⁰ ibid, p. 760, 761.

---

Alan Feuerbacher

Overview:

• Thinking for Yourself
• George Orwell’s View
• The Society Speaks Out Against Brainwashing
• The Society Advocates Open-Mindedness
• An Alternative View
• Evaluating Other Religions
• Evaluating the Society
• Belief and Understanding
• Imprisoned Ideas
• Organizational Imperatives
• When Doubts Arise
• A Study in Contrasts
• Organization Versus Independence
• A Study in Techniques
• Why Do They Do It?

 

Thinking for Yourself

The Watchtower Society sometimes encourages people to exercise their thinking abilities when considering issues related to religion. However, the Society does not want Jehovah’s Witnesses to apply those abilities to their own religion. The following discussion shows why this can be said.

The August 22, 1978 Awake! published the article “Do Others Do Your Thinking?” It encouraged people not to allow evolutionists to browbeat them into believing evolution. On pages 3 and 4 the article said:

Education teaches you how to think. Propagandists tell you what to think. True educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists hammer hard on their view and discourage discussion. Many times their true motives are hidden. They sift the facts, tell the favorable ones and conceal the others. They distort and twist facts, specialize in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target. Many fall easy prey because it takes no effort to feel, whereas thinking is hard labor. And the propagandist sees to it that his message is made to seem wise, the right and moral one, and gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure — so they say.

Propagandists have little respect for people’s thinking abilities. Hitler wrote: “The intelligence of the masses is small. Their forgetfulness is great. They must be told the same thing a thousand times.”….

Tricks of Propagandists

Symbols stir feelings. Words such as mother, home, justice, freedom — all pack a wallop for the heart. Slogans are catchy and seem to be packed with wisdom. Favorable facts are exaggerated; the others are distorted or concealed. Oratory often substitutes for sound argument, and it diverts attention from unpleasant truths that cannot be concealed. Burn a building in one place while robbing a grocery store somewhere else, is the technique.

Tyranny of authority, ridicule, name-calling, smears, slurs, personal digs — all such tactics are marshaled to assail your mind and take it by storm. Sound evidence, reasoning, logic? The propagandist’s deadliest foes!….

But even educated, sophisticated persons fall prey to a very unfair and untrue type of propaganda. This type assumes a superior air of dismissal of an opponent’s viewpoint, treating it as rather pathetic and really not worth attention. It is what many evolutionists resort to in order to evade questions that they cannot answer. They can’t prove their theory. So they resort to making assertions, and they scoff at all who dare to dispute them…. They prove neither their assertions nor their smears, but by the tyranny of authority they pontificate their opinions, squelch objections and intimidate opposers. It works, and supposedly intelligent people who know nothing about the theory believe it because “all intelligent people believe it.”….

What About You?

Proverbs 14:15 states: “A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof.” (The New English Bible) Many today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they are submerged in. It is the easy way. Exercise for the muscles is hard work; exercising the mind is even harder…. “The god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers,” that they might not know the vital truths of our time. What about you? Will you let others think for you, or will you do your own thinking? Do your own, and “thinking ability itself will keep guard over you.” At the same time, it must be admitted that we need good and proper guidance.

George Orwell’s View

An excellent description of the tyranny of authority carried to an extreme, and of the mental gyrations required of its subjects, was given by George Orwell in his 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (Remember “Big Brother is watching you”?). He described a totalitarian society called Ingsoc (from ‘English Socialism’) in which a supreme state had imposed a kind of theocracy on the populace — in effect, had created a “Kingdom of Heaven on earth.” The novel was intended as a serious warning about what could happen if certain totalitarian trends that Orwell saw developing during and shortly after World War II were allowed free rein. The supreme group at the head of the state was the Party. In order to insure that everyone thought along Party lines, the Party carefully altered facts to suit its present situation, and rigorously trained people to go along with it. Orwell wrote:

Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. [Part 3, Ch. II; p. 252 hardcover; p. 205 paperback]

In order to ensure that whatever the Party held to be truth was rigorously followed, a thought process called doublethink was enforced. Doublethink, as Orwell conceives it in Nineteen Eighty-Four, “is a vast system of mental cheating”:

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. [Part 2, Ch. IX; p. 215-6 hardcover; p. 176-7 paperback]

Propagandists often make good use of doublethink in order to justify in their own minds that whatever it is they are doing they are doing for a good purpose. They often use it to convince themselves that they are not “really” lying about something.

Phillip Johnson, author of the 1991 anti-evolution book Darwin On Trial, decried dogmatism about evolution in educational institutions and wrote, on a computer news network, in January 1993:

The points in dispute can only be settled by an unbiased examination of the evidence. Those who have confidence in their evidence and their logic do not appeal to prejudice, nor do they insist upon imposing rules of discourse that allow only one position to receive serious consideration, nor do they use vague and shifting terminology to distract attention from genuine points of difficulty. Still less do they heap abuse and ridicule upon persons who want to raise questions about the evidence and the philosophical assumptions that underly a theory. When an educational establishment has to resort to tactics like that, you can be sure that some people are getting desperate.

The Society Speaks Out Against Brainwashing

The January 8, 1980 Awake! article “Has Mass Persuasion Affected You?” contained a general discussion about not blindly accepting widespread attitudes or philosophies. On pages 13 and 14 it said:

The person most easily brainwashed is the “normal,” average individual. Such a one is already conditioned to accept opinions of others rather than to form strong convictions of his own. On the other hand, those hardest to brainwash are ones with unconventional ideas and strong convictions and who are not afraid of what others think….

The article listed five ways to resist brainwashing:

1. Have strong convictions: As noted above, the person most easily brainwashed is the one quickly swayed by others. Do not go along with an idea just because your associates accept it. Make sure that the views you adopt are truthful. The best way to do that is by comparing them with the inspired Word of God, which is ultimately “the truth.” — John 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16.

2. Find the reason: Inadvertently we often accept attitudes without knowing what is behind them. For instance, people in your community may have a negative view of certain races or ethnic groups. But why? If you find the reason unconvincing, why adopt the viewpoint?

3. Resist improper thoughts: …. It is hard to avoid seeing, hearing or otherwise experiencing improper thoughts. But must we soak our minds full of them? Doing so will adversely affect our judgments and actions. How much better to resist improper thoughts and to dwell upon things that build up! — Eph. 5:3-5.

4. Speak up for what you know to be right: This will give you opportunity to test what you believe and more firmly entrench the truth in your life. If you are convinced of the truth of a matter after thorough search, do not be disconcerted by ridicule from others….

5. Live the truth: Do not look for excuses to compromise what you know to be right. Remember, if something is right and proper, it will work out for your good. Do not be tricked into thinking that you are missing out on something or that you are unduly restricted because you conform to what is right.

The Society Advocates Open-Mindedness

The November 22, 1984 Awake! contained two articles, “An Open or a Closed Mind — Which Do You Have,” and “An Open Mind Wins God’s Approval.” The first article said on pages 3 and 4:

An open mind is free from the fetters of prejudice, which by one dictionary is defined as follows: “A judgment or opinion, favorable or unfavorable, formed beforehand or without due examination; a mental decision based on other grounds than reason or justice; especially, a premature or adversely biased opinion.”

A necessary part of life is that we make decisions and reach judgments. But decisions made “without due examination” or judgments reached “on other grounds than reason or justice” are evidences of a closed mind.

Having an open mind, on the other hand, means to be receptive to new information and ideas. It means being willing to examine and to evaluate information without a biased attitude. By retaining what is worthwhile and rejecting what is worthless, we can reach definite conclusions on a solid basis and still leave our minds open to further revision should additional information become available at a future time. He who feels he has learned it all can be sure that this attitude will prevent him from ever learning more.

A closed mind may indicate lack of knowledge. We may know so little about a subject, or have information so distorted or incomplete, that the facts necessary to reach proper conclusions are missing….

A closed mind may betray a lack of interest in the subject or a reluctance to look into the matter. In fact, it could even be a sign of uncertainty or doubt. For example, if we are unable to defend our religious views, we may find ourselves lashing out against those who challenge our beliefs, not with logical arguments, but with slurs and innuendos. This smacks of prejudice and of a closed mind.

A closed mind may also indicate a selfish desire to retain certain advantages that an open mind might cause us to lose….

The second article said, on pages 8-10:

The importance of having an open mind so as to win God’s approval is shown in the words recorded at Ephesians 5:10, 17. There we read: “Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord. On this account cease becoming unreasonable, but go on perceiving what the will of Jehovah is.”….

Even some religious people have closed minds. They are interested only in “their” religion, showing no willingness to as much as listen to the views of others….

What makes a religion right is its total adherence to God’s Word. Whether our religion meets this criterion or not can only be determined by open-mindedly comparing it with the Bible….

The apostle Peter’s admonition “be sound in mind” includes, of necessity, having an open mind, for only an open mind can reach sound conclusions and make sound judgments. Some of the inhabitants of Beroea had such an open mind, because of them we read that “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” — 1 Peter 4:7; Acts 17:11.

An open mind, free of prejudice, will enable us to go on “carefully examining the Scriptures daily” and then to act upon what we learn. This is in harmony with the Bible counsel to “become doers of the word, and not hearers only.”

The January 15, 1989 Watchtower, in the article “Are You Open to New Ideas?” said on page 5:

Some people close their mind to any new idea. They may reject it because it differs from their viewpoint….

The rest of the article describes how to be unprejudiced against new ideas, like the Beroeans, but to be selective about accepting them, measuring them against God’s Word.

The foregoing articles encourage one to personally determine the truthfulness and scripturalness of things one is taught and of what one believes. They do not advocate a “go along” attitude simply to conform to the majority or the views of a particular group. They encourage personal testing, personal weighing, personal acceptance or rejection. They urge a person to be willing to stand up for what he believes with the confidence that holding to the truth, without compromise, will always work out for the best.

An Alternative View

Contrast this with the advice given to Jehovah’s Witnesses, in the May 1, 1984 Watchtower, page 31, in the “Question from Readers.” It argues that it is right that Witnesses, going to people’s doors offering them Watchtower literature, should refuse to accept religious literature the householders visited may in turn offer them. Among other things it states:

Witnesses do not go to people’s doors searching for truth or enlightenment. Rather, they already have devoted countless hours learning the truth from God’s Word….

In other words, the Watchtower Society has already taught Jehovah’s Witnesses everything they need to know about religion, and therefore they cannot learn anything useful from anyone else.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not ignorant of others’ beliefs. They have gained considerable basic knowledge of the doctrinal beliefs of religions common in their area….

Knowledge that is prejudicial and highly filtered by the Society.

So it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive….

Implying that all religious literature not published by the Watchtower Society is deliberately designed to deceive.

As loyal Christians let us hold to God’s standards, feeding our minds on what is true and righteous, and holding appreciatively and loyally to the channel from which we first learned Bible truth.

The open-mindedness the previous articles encouraged with regard to belief in creation rather than evolution, and for non-Witnesses with regard to looking at Witness beliefs, is discouraged for Witnesses themselves. Is this not hypocrisy? How would a Witness answer a householder who said that his religious organization did not permit him to examine Witness literature? Check Matt. 7:3-5 for how Jesus viewed this attitude. Should there be one standard of measurement for Jehovah’s Witnesses and another for everyone else?

The question must be asked: Can a person be consistent if he upholds the sound principles set forth in the above articles when dealing with sources of information and influence outside his own religious community and yet abandon them within its boundaries? What must be said about an organization that urges its members to apply diligently such principles toward outside sources of information but discourages, disparages, and even denounces those who apply them to the information it itself supplies? How honest is such an organization when it calls the applying of such principles to itself by its own members “rebellious talk”? Is it consistent to praise independent thinking with regard to outside information but to condemn it as a sign of immodesty and a lack of humility when it comes to the information the organization itself supplies?

This double standard is perfectly described by another term George Orwell coined in Nineteen Eighty-Four. He described a particular type of doublethink called blackwhite:

Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the Party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The key word here is blackwhite…. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. [Part 2, Ch. IX; p. 213 hardcover; p. 175 paperback]

Testing For Truth

Evaluating Other Religions

What course of action does the Society recommend for someone who finds that his religion does not measure up to God’s Word? The September 8, 1987 Awake! contained articles directed toward Lutherans to answer this question for them. One article is built around quotations from sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant theologian executed by the Nazis. The article makes several good points about the deprecating view of the Bible held by some Protestant theologians, and about other deficiencies in Protestant religions. Consider the points the articles made on pages 8, 10 and 11:

Note the following excerpts from some of his sermons. Ask yourself: What would heeding his words mean for the Lutheran Church? for my church?

“In religion only one thing is of essential importance, that it be true.” [Quoting from Bonhoeffer] This agrees with what Jesus said: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” — John 4:24; see also John 8:32; 14:6; 16:13.

Are you sure that everything your church teaches is really true?….

Then under the subheading “If Your Church Fails to Act, Will You?” the article said:

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?….

You may sincerely believe that your church is no part of false religion that God says he will soon destroy. But your life depends upon being 100 percent sure. Are you?

For those of other religions, absolute truth is set as the criterion — everything should be “really true.” They should be “100 percent sure” about their religion. If they are “less than pleased” with what they see, they should “do more than just complain,” because they share responsibility for “everything [their] church says and does.”

Evaluating the Society

Now turn this around and imagine what would happen if a sincere Witness wanted to apply this exhortation to his own religion. In contrast with the person quoted by the above article, who leveled criticism at his own religion, a Witness would be strongly discouraged from doing the same. When he sees clear evidence of error, of unscriptural policies and beliefs in his own religion, he should not complain, and certainly not leave, as the above article implied Lutherans should do. Instead he should quietly “wait for Jehovah to straighten it out in his due time.” What is right for Lutherans is at the same time wrong for Jehovah’s Witnesses! The remarkable thing is that most Witnesses see no double standard in this.

In practice, whenever clear errors in organizational teachings or policies are pointed out to Witnesses, they will either refuse to acknowledge them or deny their importance. They deny it even to themselves, to avoid an intolerable internal conflict between what they know deep down to be the truth and what they have been taught. The denial is automatic and almost unconscious, because they have been trained this way from their earliest experience with the Watchtower Society. The process is strongly reminiscent of another kind of mental gymnastic George Orwell described in Nineteen Eighty-Four:

A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.

…. The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. [Part 2, Ch. IX; pp. 212-13 hardcover; pp. 174-5 paperback]

One man became a leader in the Korean based Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, commonly known as the “Moonies.” After leaving the church he wrote a book about his experience. The book stated:

Another key aspect of thought control involves training members to block out any information which is critical of the group. A person’s typical defense mechanisms are twisted so they defend the person’s new [religious] identity against his old former identity. The first line of defense includes denial (“What you say isn’t happening at all”), rationalization (“This is happening for a good reason”), justification (“This is happening because it ought to”), and wishful thinking (“I’d like it to be true so maybe it really is”).

If information transmitted …. is perceived as an attack on either the leader, the doctrine or the group, a hostile wall goes up. Members are trained to disbelieve any criticism….

Loyalty and devotion are the most highly respected emotions of all….

People are not allowed to talk to each other about anything critical of the leader, doctrine, or organization. Members must spy on each other and report improper activities or comments to leaders…. Most importantly, people are told to avoid contact with ex-members or critics. [Steven Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control, pp. 62-65, Park Street Press, Rochester, Vermont, 1990.]

Does this description not fit Jehovah’s Witnesses perfectly? When people put into practice the defense mechanisms described above, are they not being dishonest with themselves? If you are dishonest with yourself, refusing to face the hard facts of reality, how can you be honest with others? How can you be honest with God? How can a person claim to love truth when he can apply his reasoning abilities to expose the fallacies of others but is incapable of applying them to himself? Yet experience shows this is exactly the way Jehovah’s Witnesses are indoctrinated.

Belief and Understanding

The following statements from Watchtower publications are entirely reasonable and in line with the idea God wants his intelligent creatures to excercise the thinking abilities he gave them. But notice the contrast between what is said and what is really expected. From the April 1, 1988, Watchtower, page 30:

Jehovah does not expect us to show blind credulity. He does not want from us the kind of obedience that a trainer gets from a beast with a bridle or a whip. That is why he told David: “Do not make yourselves like a horse or mule without understanding, whose spiritedness is to be curbed even by bridle or halter.” (Psalm 32:9) Rather, Jehovah has endowed us with thinking ability and discernment so that, based on understanding, we can choose to obey him.

In Japanese, the word kiku (to hear) includes the meaning not only of listening and obeying but also of judging whether a thing is good or bad. When someone speaks to us, it is good to listen in this sense so that when obeying, we do so not by mere credulity but by choice.

Although it makes statements such as the above, the Society really wants people to practice what was stated by the religious philosopher St. Anselm (1033-1109):

I must believe in order that I may understand.

The approach stated by another religious philosopher, Peter Abelard (1079-1142), is more in line with Psalm 32:9:

I must understand in order that I may believe.

By doubting we come to questioning and by questioning we may perceive the truth. The Truth book, on page 13, applied this to religion:

We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us, and then to do it.

The December 15, 1991 Watchtower said on its back cover, in an advertisement for the book Mankind’s Search for God,

Most people know only the religion of their parents and that often only superficially. But should your religion be simply the one you were born into, or should you make an intelligent choice after comparing your religion with that of others? The 384-page book Mankind’s Search for God will help you to make this comparison.

The Watchtower of June 15, 1985, on pages 11 and 12, gives fine counsel for thinking Christians, which may also be applied to the search for true knowledge generally:

Proverbs 2:4, 5 states: ‘If as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, you will find the very knowledge of God.’ The context of that passage speaks of the need to seek out Jehovah’s “sayings,” “commandments,” “wisdom,” “discernment,” and “understanding.” Searching for treasures requires effort and perseverance. It calls for much digging. It is not different when searching for “the very knowledge of God,” for “discernment,” and for “understanding.” This also requires much digging, or penetrating below the surface…. We should be truly thankful for the spiritual digging that the “slave” class does to make clearer and clearer for us “the hidden depths of God’s purposes.”….

But that does not relieve each individual Christian of the responsibility to dig deeper into God’s Word, for the purpose of getting the full depth of the thoughts explained. This involves looking up the scriptures cited. It means reading the footnotes in Watchtower articles, some of which refer the reader to an older publication that provides a fuller explanation of a certain passage or prophecy. It requires digging deeper, putting forth effort to locate that older publication and then studying the pages referred to.

If one believes these words, one should not fear to examine ideas that may conflict with what the Society says on certain matters. Nor should one follow the example of the United States Congress, which makes laws that everyone is required to follow, but which often exempts itself from those laws because they are inconvenient. A red flag should go up when one hears words like these:

When we talk about law, we talk about organization. With all our hearts we need to search after that law. Jehovah doesn’t give individuals interpretation (of the scriptures). We need a guide, and that is the ‘faithful and discreet slave’. We should not be getting together in a clique to discuss views contrary to the ‘faithful and discreet slave’. We must recognize the source of our instruction. We must be like an ass, be humble, and stay in the manger; and we won’t get any poison. [Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, May 29, 1980, in addressing the elders of the Bethel family]

If you have a tendency towards ‘apostasy’, get a hobby and keep yourself busy to keep your mind off of it. Stay away from deep Bible study to determine meanings of the scriptures. [Governing Body member Karl Klein, April 30, 1980, in addressing the Bethel family]

Do these words not directly contradict Jehovah’s thoughts expressed in Psalm 32:9? Do they not contradict the spirit of Jehovah, who says to search in his Word to acquire understanding? When there is a conflict, who should one listen to — Jehovah or the Governing Body? As Joshua said, “As for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.”

No one should want to be included among those described by Jean-Paul Sartre as ones who, “since they are afraid of reasoning…. want to adopt a mode of life in which reasoning and research play but a subordinate role, in which one never seeks but that which one has already found.” [Walter Kaufman, Existentialism, Religion, and Death: Thirteen Essays, New American Library, New York, 1976.]

Karl Klein said to “stay away from deep Bible study to determine meanings of the scriptures.” This brings to mind another quotation from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:

He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. [Part 1, Ch. V; p. 54 hardcover; p. 47 paperback]

The Society’s focus on organization has become one of its most outstanding characteristics. Everything in the lives of members must be subservient to organizational desires. A British parliamentarian had some excellent words to say about people who become overly devoted to organizations, and the article is here included in its entirety:

Imprisoned Ideas

By W. P. Brown, MP. A member of the British Parliament outlines the dangers of becoming a slave of institutions or organizations:

There are many classifications into which men and women may be divided — as upper, middle or lower class; rich, well-to-do and poor; religious, skeptical and theist; Conservative, Liberal, Labor, Catholic, Protestant, master and man; and so forth and so on, ad infinitum. But, as I think, the only categorization which really matters is that which divides men as between the Servants of the Spirit and slaves of the organization. That classification, which cuts right across all the other classifications, is indeed the fundamental one. The idea, the inspiration, originates in the internal world, the world of the spirit. But, just as the human spirit must incarnate in a body, so must the idea incarnate in an organization. Whether the organization be political, religious, or social is immaterial to my present argument. The point is that, the idea having embodied itself in an organization, the organization then proceeds gradually to slay the idea which gave it birth.

We may see this process at work in many fields. Let us take one or two by way of illustration. In the field of religion, a prophet, an inspired man, will see a vision of truth. He expresses that vision as best he may in words. He will not say all he saw. For every expression of truth is a limitation of it. But he will, so to speak, express the sense of his vision. What he says is only partly understood by those who hear him; and when they repeat what they understand him to have meant there will already be a considerable departure from the original vision of the prophet. Upon what his disciples understand of the prophet’s message, an organization, a church will be built. The half-understood message will crystalize into a creed. Before long, the principal concern of the church will be to sustain itself as an organization. To this end, any departure from the creed must be controverted and, if necessary, suppressed as heresy. In a few score or a few hundred years what was conceived as a vehicle of a new and higher truth has become a prison for the souls of men. And men are murdering each other for the love of God. The thing has become its opposite.

In the field of politics, the dispossessed dream of social order which shall be based on righteousness, a system in which men shall not exploit their fellowmen, in which each shall contribute according to his capacity and each shall receive according to his need. Upon this conception a political party is built. It gives battle, over the years to the existing order of things. As with the church, it is not long before the primary concern of the party is to sustain itself. Here again, any departure from the political creed must be repressed. The “party line” must be kept straight and dissent kept under. In the course of time, the party achieves power. By this time, it is no longer led by starry-eyed idealists, but by extremely tough guys — who then proceed to use their newly acquired power to establish a stronger despotism than the one they overthrew, and to sew up all the holes in it that they themselves discovered in the old. What emerges is not freedom and social justice, but a more comprehensive and totalitarian control, used to maintain a new privileged class, which, because of the earlier experience of its members, is still more ruthless than the old.

Similar illustrations could be drawn from all fields of life. But these two will suffice to demonstrate the truth with which I am here concerned. It is that, the idea having given birth to the organization, the organization develops a self-interest which has no connection with and becomes inimical to, the idea with which it began. Now, the thing which permits this process of diversion to take place, so that the organization comes to stand for the opposite of the idea which originally inspired it, is the tendency in men and women to become Prisoners of the Organization, instead of being Servants of the Spirit. In this tendency there are many elements. There is a sense in which you cannot run an organization without becoming its prisoner. Organization has its own necessities, in the interests of which the original idea has to be somewhat qualified. As soon as the idea passes from the unmanifested and embodies itself in the actual, it begins to be invaded by what the poet called “the world’s slow stain.” In this, there need be no conscious infidelity on the part of the leaders. Better, they may well argue, that the great idea should be only partly manifested than that it should remain a mere idea in vacuo. Better half the ideal loaf than no bread at all.

Next, the wider the area to which the idea is introduced, the larger the circle of men and women to whom it is propagated through the organization, the more it must be “stepped down” for propaganda purposes. The idea which gives birth to a party which wants to establish the cooperative commonwealth, must be translated into practical proposals, such as the eight-hour day, the five-day week, and what not, if it is to attract a mass backing. And so the organization becomes less the vehicle of the idea than a channel through which particular interests must be served. The service of such particular interests attracts the backing of other organized bodies more interested in the limited objectives which the organization has now adopted than in the great idea itself. And the pressure of such bodies is felt by the organization, with the result that the idea tends to retreat into the background in favor of less ambitious objectives. In this world, the Devil walks, and it is necessary sometimes to hold a candle to the Devil.

Another element is this: Prophets always stand a good chance of being bumped off. This chance is increased if they come down from the hills into the marketplace, and still further increased if they come down unarmed. Prophets should only go unarmed into the marketplace if they think that their work is done, and are prepared to depart hence. Some prophets take to arms. Even where the original prophet does not, his disciples may do so. The Devil must be fought with the Devil’s weapons. This is argumentatively sound but practically disastrous. For it means that the servants of God, the disciples of the idea, tend to descend to the Devil’s level. As the organization grows, it deteriorates. Its leaders are not the men they were.

Among the rank and file many things combine to keep them in the organization, even when they become uneasily conscious that there is a dawning, and even a yawning gap between organization and idea. First there is the force of inertia. It is easier not to resign than resign. Drift is easier than decision. Next there is the factor of sentiment. All of us tend to project onto the organization of which we are members, the virtue we would like it to have, and to be blind to its defects. And, finally, men are gregarious creatures and dislike falling out of the ranks away from the comrades of years. Gradually the organization changes. As it changes it attracts new elements which approve the change. Not because of conscious calculation, which comes much later, when the idea has been deserted, but because organization develops its own logic, its own raison d’etre, and because men tend to become the Prisoners of the Organization, the organization can finish up by standing for the precise opposite of the idea which called it into being.

What is the moral to be drawn from all this?

One moral, it would not be wholly facetious to suggest, might be that the first rule for an organization should be a rule providing for its dissolution within a limited period of time. “This organization shall be dissolved not later than …” But the deeper moral is concerned with our attitude to organization as such. The moral is that, even when we are members of an organization, our attitude to it should be one of partial detachment. We must be above it even when we are members of it. We should join it in the knowledge that there we may have no abiding place. We should be weekly tenants, not long-leaseholders. We should accept no such commitments as would prevent our leaving it when circumstances make this necessary. We should reckon on being in almost perpetual rebellion within it. Above all, we should regard all loyalties to organization as tentative and provisional. The whole concept of “my party, right or wrong,” “my union, right or wrong,” “my church, right or wrong” should be utterly alien to our thinking. We must be Servants of the Spirit, not Prisoners of the Organization. We must keep in touch with the sources of life, not lose ourselves in its temporary vehicles. And whenever the demands of the Spirit, the categorical imperatives of the soul, conflict with the demands of the organization, it is all contained in one of the legendary sayings of Jesus, which bears all the marks of authenticity:

This world is a bridge. Ye shall pass over it, but ye shall build no houses upon it.

Bivouacs. Yes! Tents. Maybe! Houses. No!

Dangerous Questions

Organizational Imperatives

Brown’s article touches on the problem of what to do when one finds a difference between organizational imperatives and what one believes to be right. This conflict, between what reason tells one to do when one finds that the Watchtower Society is not all that it claims to be, and the Society’s organizational instructions on what to do, is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in material it publishes about “apostates.” According to the Bible an apostate is a person who has left or opposes God. The Society realizes there is a distinction between one who has left God, and one who has left its organization, but it calls anyone who leaves or even disagrees publicly with it an apostate. This allows the Society to apply Biblical admonitions concerning apostates to anyone who disagrees with it.

The Society has occasionally said that, in a general sense, an apostate is anyone who leaves an organization. This is patently ridiculous. If this is the correct use of the term, then because most of Jehovah’s Witnesses have left various religious organizations they must be apostates. The Society’s blurring of definitions is a smokescreen to cover the real issue, namely, that it wants to silence anyone who publicly disagrees with it. Properly, anyone who disagrees with his religious organization is a heretic, but use of this word carries certain bad historical connotations about the user, and so the Society never uses it.

When Doubts Arise

The following material well illustrates the Society’s technique of not clearly defining its terms in order to allow it to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses should not listen to anyone who disagrees with it. The Watchtowerarticle quoted from is a textbook example of the propaganda techniques warned against in the above mentioned Watchtower publications. Compare the quotations to the techniques stated above in Combatting Cult Mind Control. Compare it especially to the article “Do Others Do Your Thinking?” quoted above from the August 22, 1978 Awake!

The March 15, 1986 Watchtower had several articles dealing with how Jehovah’s Witnesses should handle ideas that conflict with those the Society teaches. The first article, “Do Not Be Quickly Shaken From Your Reason,” beginning on page 10, describes how Witnesses could lose faith in the Society as “God’s organization.” As usual it assumes that the Watchtower Society and Jehovah are virtually identical. Any difficulties are due to human imperfection and inconsequential. Note how subtly this mental manipulation occurs:

The Devil and other opposers of true worship are skilled in deception. We should never forget that they stand ever ready to break our integrity if they can. Their propaganda is designed to weaken our faith, to cool our love for God, to sow doubts in our minds — yes, to make the spiritual paradise appear to be no paradise at all.

The “doubts” include, of course, any doubts that the Society is “God’s channel.” Emotions about God are mixed up with emotions about the Society.

To borrow from a proverbial saying, we could come to the point where we would find it difficult, perhaps even impossible, to see the forest of the spiritual paradise because of looking so closely at the imperfect human trees now in it. The thrill we had in learning the truth of God’s Word, the grand hope we came to have, the love we developed for God and our spiritual brothers, and the zeal we had for Jehovah’s service can fade. If drastic steps are not taken to reverse any such spiritual deterioration, soon God’s loving requirements seem to be oppressive. The wholesome spiritual food from “the faithful and discreet slave” may seem to be something contemptible, and the brotherhood of loving servants of Jehovah may appear to be a household of enemies.

See how subtly the concept is brought in, that the Society is indistinguishable from Jehovah.

Then the only satisfaction, of a perverted kind, may come in beginning to beat one’s fellow slaves with slander and half-truths.

Any who don’t fully accept the Society’s views are implied to be perverted, slanderous and tellers of half-truths. All other possibilities are eliminated by not mentioning them. Doubting the Society puts the doubter in mortal danger:

Yes, we could not only lose the blessings of the spiritual paradise now but, more seriously, also lose the hope of living eternally in the earthly Paradise.

Next, the article tells how Adam and Eve lost out because of following a course independent from God. This sets the reader’s frame of mind to a state of abhoring the idea of ‘independent thinking’. What the aforementioned article on being brainwashed by evolutionists said was proper to do — think for oneself — is about to be denounced:

Independence — actually a different teaching — was more important to them than were obedience to Jehovah…. What a terrible price to pay for their so-called independence!

Then scriptures are quoted to the effect that no one should allow himself to be seduced by the Devil’s cunning. Of course, what is really meant is that any thoughts contrary to the Society’s teaching are devilish.

A Study in Contrasts

Next, the article gets to the real meat, under the sub-heading “Have No Dealings With Apostates.” In the following, the March 15 Watchtower article is quoted on the left, and on the right are quotations from previously mentioned articles.

March 15, 1986 Watchtower	August 22, 1978 Awake!
Now, what will you do if you are confronted with apostate teaching — subtle reasonings — claiming that what you believe as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the truth? For example, what will you do if you receive a letter or some literature, open it, and and see right away that it is from an apostate?	Symbols stir feelings. Words such as mother, home, justice, freedom — all pack a wallop for the heart.

The reader is given no express instructions on how to recognize apostate literature, but the first sentence cues him on how it is to be done. The symbol apostate is the cue. Anything that criticizes the Society is apostate, because all criticism of “God’s channel” is unwarranted. The question must also be asked, How can anyone recognize “subtle reasonings” as such without considering them carefully? This provides a second cue.

March 15, 1986 Watchtower

August 22, 1978 Awake!

Will curiosity cause you to read it, just to see what he has to say? You may even reason: ‘It won’t affect me; I’m too strong in the truth. And, besides, if we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test.’ In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt.

What about you? Will you let others think for you, or will you do your own thinking? Do your own, and “thinking ability itself will keep guard over you.” A necessary part of life is that we make decisions and reach judgments. But decisions made “without due examination” or judgments reached “on other grounds than reason or justice” are evidences of a closed mind. Having an open mind, on the other hand, means to be receptive to new information and ideas. It means being willing to examine and to evaluate information without a biased attitude.

Serious questioning and doubt about what? Not just about God or the Bible, but about the Society. This is what the Society is worried about more than anything else. The article goes on to describe the Bible’s view of apostates, all along implying that the Society is the only source of accurate knowledge and putting itself in God’s place in the mind of the reader. This is most strongly emphasized in the following paragraph:

March 15, 1986 Watchtower

August 22, 1978 Awake!

When a fellow human tells us, ‘Do not read this’ or, ‘Do not listen to that,’ we may be tempted to ignore his advice. But remember, in this case Jehovah is the One who tells us in his Word what to do. And what does he say about apostates? “Avoid them”…. If, out of curiosity, we were to read the literature of a known apostate, would that not be the same as inviting this enemy of true worship right into our home to sit down with us and relate his apostate ideas?

Tyranny of authority, ridicule, name-calling, smears, slurs, personal digs — all such tactics are marshaled to assail your mind and take it by storm. Sound evidence, reasoning, logic? The propagandist’s deadliest foes! Some people close their mind to any new idea. They may reject it because it differs from their viewpoint. True educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists hammer hard on their view and discourage discussion.

Next, the article compares reading “apostate” literature to looking at sexual pornography. Heavy use is made of symbols and cue words:

March 15, 1986 Watchtower	August 22, 1978 Awake!
Should we not expect that our loving heavenly Father would similarly warn us and protect us from spiritual fornication, including apostasy? He says, Keep away from it!	Ridicule, name-calling, smears, slurs, personal digs — all such tactics are marshaled to assail your mind and take it by storm.

At this point the typical reader’s emotions will be telling him that seriously questioning the Watchtower Society is the same as committing fornication. This is powerful symbolism indeed.

The article now raises the question of what Jehovah’s Witnesses are to do with sincere people who raise the same questions “apostates” do:

But suppose we are preaching the good news and people raise questions or objections similar to those raised by opposers?

Note the subtle switch from “apostates” to “opposers.” This serves to reinforce the idea that any who criticize the Society are opposers and are therefore apostates. No allowance is made that sincere criticism might be warranted.

Of course, if a person is not sincere and merely wishes to argue, usually it is best to excuse ourselves and go to the next door.

How does the Witness determine whether the person is sincere? Since he can’t read the person’s mind, it must be by observing the response to the Witness’s answers. If the person does not agree, then he must be insincere.

But if someone sincerely asks about certain claims of apostates, what can be done?

Again note the subtle cueing. The person could not have come up with the questions on his own — he must have gotten them from devil-inspired apostates.

March 15, 1986 Watchtower

August 22, 1978 Awake!

First, we can ask what, exactly, has caused the concern. It may be only one or two points. Then we can stick to these and answer from the Scriptures, from the Society’s publications, and from what we truthfully know about the subject. We need not conclude that we have to read a book or a pamphlet that is filled with slander and half-truths in order to refute the false claims and teachings of opposers.

A closed mind may betray a lack of interest in the subject or a reluctance to look into the matter. In fact, it could even be a sign of uncertainty or doubt. For example, if we are unable to defend our religious views, we may find ourselves lashing out against those who challenge our beliefs, not with logical arguments, but with slurs and innuendos. This smacks of prejudice and of a closed mind.

It is, of course, assumed the Witness will be able to answer the sincere questions. He is never given a hint that he may not have a leg to stand on. All this propaganda serves to reinforce the idea that the Society is God’s channel and should not be questioned. It cannot possibly be wrong about anything. Any who have enough knowledge to raise valid questions must be insincere at best, opposers and apostates at worst. The rest of the article makes full use of the propaganda techniques described in Combatting Cult Mind Control. The article that follows, “Allow No Place for the Devil!”, uses similar techniques but goes even so far as to deliberately misinterpret the Bible to prove its point. On page 17, paragraph 8 states:

March 15, 1986 Watchtower

August 22, 1978 Awake!

A person may… claim that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or other responsible brothers interfere with freedom of conscience and the individual’s “right” to interpret the Scriptures. But remember Joseph’s humble words: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8)

They sift the facts, tell the favorable ones and conceal the others. They distort and twist facts, specialize in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target. Many fall easy prey because it takes no effort to feel, whereas thinking is hard labor. Propagandists have little respect for people’s thinking abilities. Hitler wrote: “The intelligence of the masses is small. Their forgetfulness is great. They must be told the same thing a thousand times.”…. Fraud is defined as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.” It is the “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.” [January 22, 1990 Awake!, page 8]

This is a blatant misuse of the scriptures, as Joseph was talking about interpreting dreams that were prophecies given by God, not about interpreting the Bible. The two things are completely different, and whoever wrote this article knew this perfectly well. As 1 Peter 1:20 says:

For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

It is truly amazing that the writer of this article can so cynically, and so rightly, believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses who read his words will ignore the true meaning of the scripture cited. The man obviously takes Jehovah’s Witnesses for fools. The December 15, 1988 Watchtower, on pages 3-4, told how even the apostle Paul avoided this:

Of course, it would have been wrong for Paul to take scriptures out of their context and twist them to fit his own personal ideas. But Paul was not guilty of this. Apparently some early Christians were guilty, however, for the apostle Peter speaks of “things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” — 2 Peter 3:16.

Another gem from this article attempts to show why the failed chronological predictions of the Society do not make it a false prophet. This extract is a textbook example of the ad hominem argument, where a personal attack is made on the opponent rather than on the argument being addressed.

March 15, 1986 Watchtower

August 22, 1978 Awake!

Finally, we might consider what the Society has published in the past on chronology. Some opposers claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses are false prophets. These opponents say that dates have been set, but nothing has happened. Again we ask, What is the motive of these critics? Are they encouraging wakefulness on the part of God’s people, or are they, rather, trying to justify themselves for falling back into sleepy inactivity? (1 Thessalonians 5:4-9)

Oratory often substitutes for sound argument, and it diverts attention from unpleasant truths that cannot be concealed. Name-calling, smears, slurs, personal digs — all such tactics are marshaled to assail your mind and take it by storm. They prove neither their assertions nor their smears, but by the tyranny of authority they pontificate their opinions, squelch objections and intimidate opposers.

Does the article say that such “opponents” are wrong? Of course not, because nearly all Jehovah’s Witnesses know they are right. Instead it resorts to the ad hominem attack.

More importantly, what will you do if you hear such a criticism? If a person is questioning whether we are living in “the last days” of this system, or perhaps is entertaining ideas that God is so merciful that he surely will not cause the death of so many millions of people during the “great tribulation,” then this individual already has prepared his heart to listen to such criticisms.

What incisive reasoning! If a person is asking hard questions, he “already has prepared his heart to listen to such criticisms.” What insight! What a response to give to opposers! What swill!

The writer of this article is a master of understatement. It is well known that the Society predicted the end of the world for 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975. The Society claims that it never predicted the end of the world for 1975, and as far as explicit statements in official publications go this is correct. However, the Society has an informal channel for distributing information — through meetings and assembly talks — which information is not published. This way, organizational instructions are distributed, but it is difficult to later pin anything down since it was never part of “official” policy. The following is a partial transcript of a talk entitled “Serving with Everlasting Life In View,” given at a circuit assembly in the spring of 1967 in Sheboygan, Wisconsin by the Society’s representative. The speaker emphasized the nearness of Armageddon without setting a specific date. However, speaking of the world to come after Armageddon, he said: “Well, now, who will be there, of us here tonight? For the Society has made application of this scripture, in pointing out that those of us among Jehovah’s Witnesses that are not regularly associating with his people, without good cause, such as being flat on our back, will not be in the new order. And we’re the ones that are going to come around when the doors close, and say ‘I want in now. Sir, open to us!’ And Jesus will have to say, ‘I’m sorry, I don’t even recognize you.’ Now wouldn’t that be an awful thing. Do you see now why the Society implores us, year in and year out, the same old thing, ‘Brothers, get in the flock. Don’t let any excuses get in our way. Nothing of any nature. There’s only one thing that’s going to count when that time comes, and that’s that we are inside.’ And we hope that all of us here tonight are going to listen to the Society’s imploring. We’re going to listen to the agonizing entreaty, ‘Brothers get in!’, because they know what’s coming. And it’s coming fast — and don’t wait till ’75. The door is going to be shut before then.” The Society predicted the end of all false religion for 1918, and made many other predictions too numerous to mention here. Note how the writer describes this:

Jehovah’s people have had to revise expectations from time to time…. The need to revise our understanding somewhat does not make us false prophets.

Is that so? If false predictions spoken in God’s name do not make a false prophet, then what does? All the statements in these articles do is give Jehovah’s Witnesses a list of excuses to offer for the Society’s failures. Not a single argument that is said to be raised by opponents is answered. Instead, excuses are offered.

Organization Versus Independence

The Society has sometimes made the point that Christians are not dedicated to an organization. The October 1, 1966 Watchtower said on pages 603-4:

We cannot keep everlasting life in view without staying close to Jehovah, the source of life…. This is what we mean when we dedicate our lives to Jehovah. We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicated ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself.

In line with this, the baptismal questions, which really amount to vows, up through the mid-1980s included something like the following, which appeared on page 465 of the August 1, 1970 Watchtower:

On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?

The newest baptismal questions, from the June 1, 1985 Watchtower, showed that new Jehovah’s Witnesses were no longer to dedicate themselves just to God, but in effect, to the Watchtower Society as well:

Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?

These changes indicate that the Society wants members to focus on itself as much as on God. Everything is oriented towards organizational thinking.

The January 15, 1983 Watchtower contained two articles that well illustrate the problem areas described above. Although couched in language that exhorts the reader to avoid such things as sexual immorality and unfaithfulness to God, the main thrust of the articles is to reinforce the reader’s focus on the Watchtower Society as the center of all spiritually good things. On page 22, the sub-section entitled “Avoid Independent Thinking” said:

From the very outset of his rebellion Satan called into question God’s way of doing things. He promoted independent thinking. ‘You can decide for yourself what is good and bad,’ Satan told Eve. ‘You don’t have to listen to God. He is not really telling you the truth.’ (Genesis 3:1-5) To this day, it has been Satan’s subtle design to infect God’s people with this type of thinking. — 2 Timothy 3:1, 13.

How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God’s visible organization. For example, God’s organization has from time to time given warnings about listening to certain types of immoral and suggestive music, and about frequenting discos and other types of worldly dance halls where such music is played and people are known to engage in immoral conduct. (1 Corinthians 15:33) Yet certain ones have professed to know better. They have rebelled against such counsel and have done what is right in their own eyes. With what result? Very often they have become involved in sexual immorality and have suffered severe spiritual harm. But even if they have not been so affected, are they not reprehensible if others follow their example and suffer bad consequences? — Matthew 18:6.

This fact cannot be overemphasized: We are in a war with superhuman foes, and we constantly need to be aware of this. Satan and his demons are real; they are not mere figments of the imagination. They are “the world rulers of this darkness,” and we have a spiritual fight against them. (Ephesians 6:12) It is absolutely vital that we recognize their subtle designs and not allow ourselves to be overreached by them.

The next article in the January 15, 1983 Watchtower had a subsection entitled “Fight Against Independent Thinking,” on page 27, which said:

As we study the Bible we learn that Jehovah has always guided his servants in an organized way. And just as in the first century there was only one true Christian organization, so today Jehovah is using only one organization. (Ephesians 4:4, 5; Matthew 24:45-45) Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: “This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe.” This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous?

Note what W. P. Brown, quoted above, had to say about this: “Before long, the principal concern of the church will be to sustain itself as an organization. To this end, any departure from the creed must be controverted and, if necessary, suppressed as heresy.”

Such thinking is an evidence of pride. And the Bible says: “Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.” (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: “Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?” No, we cannot! — Compare Acts 15:2, 28, 29; 16:4, 5.

All this has said is that “independent thinking” is dangerous because it is an evidence of pride. Then the paragraph immediately appeals to the reader’s loyalties and emotions: “Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place?” What has happened to Psalm 32:9, “Do not make yourselves like a horse or mule without understanding, whose spiritedness is to be curbed even by bridle or halter”? Certainly Pastor Russell did not think Psalm 32:9 should be ignored, at least not when he was younger. As W. P. Brown said: “The point is that, the idea having embodied itself in an organization, the organization then proceeds gradually to slay the idea which gave it birth.” The original idea having been slain, standardized thinking takes over, and the organization looks inward and adopts a “them against us” attitude. This is well shown by the last quotation from the Watchtower article:

When we consider the mighty spirit forces who are fighting against us, we must acknowledge that on our own we could not possibly win. Yet with God’s backing, and with the help and support of his organization — our worldwide association of brothers — we cannot lose. (Psalm 118:6-12; 1 Peter 5:9) However, we must never forget that we are in a spiritual war, and that wartime is no time to be relaxing, enjoying only leisure and the pleasures of life. Rather, it is the time for vigorous training, alertness and self-sacrifice. The enemy has been able to get some from among us to relax their guard, and these have become battle casualties. May this never happen to us! It will not if we keep on “the complete suit of armor from God” and “stand firm against the [crafty acts] of the Devil.” — Ephesians 6:11, 12.

A Study in Techniques

As an exercise for the reader, the following material from the 1943 Watchtower is presented. The reader is invited to see how many propaganda tricks are used.

In 1943 the Society was apparently having trouble getting its members to go out and preach as much as the headquarters staff thought was desirable. So a Watchtower article was written to correct the situation and stimulate members to preach more and in the prescribed organizational manner. The article is a classic in the field of persuading by guilt and tyranny of authority. It also nicely illustrates the Society’s technique of finding all sorts of plausible reasons for doing something, but never explicitly giving the real reason. In the article the Society declares explicitly that its instructions are exactly the same as if God himself spoke directly to the members. The outline of the article goes something like this:

1. Declare that it is a fine thing to serve God.

2. Declare that the Watchtower Society is God’s representative on earth.

3. Declare that members must listen to the Society because its instructions are equivalent to those of God.

4. Issue explicit instructions.

5. Downgrade those who would slack and commend those who would respond.

The article makes free use of Watchtower Society jargon and special symbol words or phrases such as “service,” “love,” “pleasing to God,” “the Lord’s people,” “righteous,” “call to action,” “consecrated,” “spirit-begotten,” “anointed,” “cleansed,” “commissioned,” “meat in due season,” “household of faith,” “faithful and wise servant,” “organization,” “righteous requirements,” “vindication of Jehovah’s name,” “the work of the Lord,” “those who have the mind of the Lord,” “appreciate,” “responsibilities,” “faithfulness,” “Jehovah’s will,” “organization instructions,” “God’s channel,” “joyfully accept his part,” “faithfully carry out,” “visible mouthpiece,” “privileged to represent the Lord,” “established agency,” “prove your integrity,” “magnify the Lord’s “name,” “rank unfaithfulness to the Lord,” “bear his burden before the Lord,” “provisions the Lord has made,” “excuses,” “duties,” “those who really love the Lord,” “fighters for the New World,” “obey instructions,” “take responsibilities seriously,” “old world interests,” “New World interests,” “wholeheartedly,” “blameless,” “by God’s grace” and “do your part.”

The July 1, 1943 Watchtower article “Righteous Requirements,” on pages 204-6, said:

The kingdom of God is the highest government any creature can serve. All kingdom service to be acceptable must find its motive in love for the Lord. The intelligent creature desiring to be pleasing to God must always have this fact foremost in his mind. The call to action going forth to the Lord’s people throughout the earth at this time is a righteous call, and action is a righteous requirement…. in 1918 the King came to his temple class composed of the consecrated, spirit-begotten and anointed members of his body. These he has judged cleansed and commissioned to act as his “faithful and wise servant”….

“Propagandists hammer hard on their view…. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.”

This servant he has placed over his earthly household and has given him charge over all his goods with specific instructions to bring forth “meat in due season” for the household of faith. The servant was also anointed “to preach good tidings unto the meek….

The Scriptures and the facts clearly establish that the commission given to the “faithful and wise servant” is grounded in the Word of the Lord. There is only one organization on earth today fulfilling the righteous requirements outlined in this commission from the Lord. The Society, represented by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, is the only one preaching good tidings unto the meek….

“The propagandist sees to it that his message is made to seem wise, the right and moral one, and gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure — so they say.”

The “Society” is composed of the Lord’s consecrated, spirit-begotten and anointed servants, and is the “faithful and wise servant” class, who, under the leadership of Jehovah’s commissioned King Christ Jesus, are fulfilling this commission. We should not expect more than one organization doing this work, and the fact that there is no other proves clearly who is the “faithful and wise servant” whom the Lord places over his household. The Lord did not commission a number of servants to act for him, nor did he scatter his work and goods over a great many organizations. No! There could be only one “servant”; and as Jephthah demonstrated that he was the Lord’s choice by doing the Lord’s work in the spirit and power of the Lord, so the Society today clearly demonstrates to all who have the mind of the Lord and are interested in the vindication of Jehovah’s name that it is the Lord’s choice and is his “faithful and wise servant” doing the work of the Lord in the power and spirit of Jehovah.

“Even educated, sophisticated persons fall prey to a very unfair and untrue type of propaganda. This type assumes a superior air of dismissal of an opponent’s viewpoint, treating it as rather pathetic and really not worth attention…. They resort to making assertions, and they scoff at all who dare to dispute them…. They prove neither their assertions nor their smears, but by the tyranny of authority they pontificate their opinions, squelch objections and intimidate opposers.”

This Society was authorized by the Lord to bring forth things new and old for the household of faith and do the work for which the Lord had organized it. Therefore it is fully qualified and duly authorized to issue a “call to action” to all who claim to be on the Lord’s side to busy themselves in doing the work of the Lord.

“Tyranny of authority…. such tactics are marshaled to assail your mind and take it by storm.”

This “call to action” sent out by the Lord through the Society is based on the fulfilled prophecies of his Word clearly revealed to those who have the mind of the Lord, by such Watchtower articles as the prophecy of Daniel 11:27-45, “Micah,” “Song-Call to Action,” “Defeat of Persecution,” “The Only Light,” “Fighter for the New World,” etc. These thrilling prophecies were called to our attention during the past year and clearly reveal the Lord’s requirements for those who are under the leadership of his King. These are, therefore, right and righteous requirements to every consecrated servant of the Lord.

“Symbols stir feelings. Words such as mother, home, justice, freedom — all pack a wallop for the heart. Slogans are catchy and seem to be packed with wisdom.”

How does the Lord issue the call to his people? Does it come in the form of a harsh ultimatum: You do thus and so, or else — ? No! Such ultimatums are not necessary. The Lord never adopts that attitude toward his servants, and no one else has a right to….

This call is therefore for those who love the Lord and rejoice in his righteous requirements and who wish to live in and accept the responsibilities of the New World. Such show their faith and faithfulness by their response to the call to action. When this class sees the issue and hears the call, that is all that is necessary. Jesus says of them, ‘For they know the good shepherd’s voice, and a stranger will they not follow.’ (John 10:4, 5) The Lord always issues his call to action in an organized, systematic manner. This is emphasized throughout the bible, from the opening chapters of Genesis to the concluding chapters of Revelation. Let us consider one or two by way of illustration.

In Genesis 1:26 Jehovah issued a “call to action” to his Son, the Logos, and such other agencies as were required for the creation of man, in these words: “And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness.” This is all there was to it. Jehovah expressed his will. That expressed will became “organization instructions” to the Logos….

Every organization requires specific instructions for all those who serve in it. In the past the Lord issued his “organization instructions” to his servants through his central agency or channel. Each one joyfully accepted his part therein and faithfully carried it out.

This is, of course, absolute nonsense. Prophets never went to some central body for their instructions. They received them directly from Jehovah God. Even prophets who were contemporaries did not consult each other about the message they were to give. This was also true in the early Christian congregation. The gifts of the holy spirit were not distributed through some earthly channel, but directly. As Acts 15 and Galatians 1 and 2 show, the apostle Paul never went to the Jerusalem congregation to receive orders, as if it were a central authority. Instead he worked out of the Antioch congregation and reported his activities to it. In fact, the most important reason Paul went to Jerusalem was as a result of a revelation, to straighten out a problem created by men from Jerusalem, “men from James.”

Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his Son. (Heb. 1:1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he has come to his temple. He has appointed his “faithful and wise servant”, who is his visible mouthpiece, and says to those who are privileged to represent him upon the earth, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations” (Matthew 24:14); and, “The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the LORD and to seek the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 8:21); and, “Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.” — Jer. 16:16.

These expressions of God’s will by his King and through his established agency constitute his law or rule of action for the “faithful and wise servant” and for their goodwill companions today who will dwell upon the earth for ever in the New World. The Lord breaks down our organization instructions further and makes them more practicable by further instructing us through his “faithful and wise servant”. He says, ‘Let us assign the field, the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies of Jehovah’s witnesses in an orderly way, sufficient for everyone to thoroughly witness therein, and let us place upon each one the responsibility of caring for the New World interest in these respective assignments.’ He says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175 hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop into a reasonble number of studies; and for regular pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as can be properly developed during that time. And for company publishers he says, ‘Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher.’ These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us; and, for those who really love the Lord and are guided by his counsel, that is a reasonable service requirement. This expression of the Lord’s will should be the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to prove your integrity and magnify the Lord’s name.

These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals and as collective units called “companies”. Almost everyone who is consecrated to the Lord recognizes that a company requires organization in order to function properly, but not all of these same brethren appreciate the fact that they as individuals require just as complete an organization to carry out their individual responsibilities as the company does. To illustrate: All realize that every company should have a definite assignment of territory in which to witness, but not all appreciate that each individual in that company should have his or her own personal assignment of territory in which to witness. It is just as foolish for a publisher to conclude that he can serve the Lord properly without a personal assignment as it would be for a company to decide that it could function acceptably to the Lord without a territory assignment. A company is required to have an assignment and to systematically work in it from house to house, make back-calls, conduct book studies, and generally aid the people of good-will. They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in that assignment. They logically hold their own city and such adjacent territory as they can properly handle. It would be the height of foolishness for them to leave their own city and go to a city twenty miles away held by someone else and try to systematically witness in it. Every intelligent person will admit that that would be not only foolishness but rank unfaithfulness to the Lord. The same principle applies to the publisher who refuses to accept the responsibility for a personal assignment of territory and have that assignment as close as possible to his home. The farther away from his home that assignment is, the less time he will have to devote to it and the more difficult it will be to give proper attention to the interest in the territory. Consequently, it is a measure of unfaithfulness to the Lord to thus waste time and energy that belongs to him.

“Propagandists have little respect for people’s thinking abilities. Hitler wrote: ‘The intelligence of the masses is small. Their forgetfulness is great. They must be told the same thing a thousand times.’….”

The time has come when each one must bear his own burden fully before the Lord. With the provisions that the Lord has now made in supplying us with new books, question booklets which contain complete instructions for properly carrying on a study, etc., there is absolutely no excuse for anyone, man or woman, to claim to be unable to accept an individual territory assignment and assume full responsibility for it. Those who really love the Lord and are fighters for the New World will not try to excuse themselves on that or any other ground, but will hear the Word of the Lord when he says, Let us do thus and so, and always keep in mind the us includes the Lord, who will be with you in every undertaking. — Matthew 18:20.

The Lord through his “faithful and wise servant” now states to us, “Let us cover our territory four times in six months.” That becomes our organization instructions and has the same binding force on us that his statement to the Logos had when he said, “Let us make man in our image.” It is our duty to accept this additional instruction and obey it. But someone will say, “The conditions are different. In the case of the Logos, he could accomplish what Jehovah commanded him to do; but when it comes to covering our territory four times in six months, that is out of all reason. We have never covered it more than once or, at the most, twice in six months. It just can’t be done.” We have all heard that argument before. And if it were true it would look bad indeed, and would imply that the Lord was asking us to do something that is impossible for us to accomplish. The children of Israel walked around Jericho seven times the last day.

The territory now being covered one to two times in six months could very easily be covered four to six times in the same period if everyone took his Kingdom responsibilities seriously. This is not theory, but actual facts based on figures gleaned from a number of companies during the past six months. Psalm 116:12-18 seems worthy of consideration here: “What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD. I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. O LORD, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds. I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD. I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people.”

To do this may mean taking time and effort that is now being devoted to “old world” interests and transferring them to New World interests, which are of God and shall abide for ever. The words of the apostle Peter are to the point in this respect: “Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness?” (2 Peter 3:11) Before real progress will be made in increasing our activity we must each one recognize these calls to action as coming from the Lord and applying to us personally, and respond to them wholeheartedly.

Why Do They Do It?

The Watchtower Society has made a number of false predictions about “the end of the world.” Many people have accused it of being a “false prophet” because of this. The March 22, 1993 Awake! attempted to answer such critics, but it did it in such a way as to be a textbook example of Orwellian doublethink. The rationalization process the Society uses to sweep under the rug its false predictions and about-faces of doctrine are clearly evident. Already the false predictions about 1975 have nearly disappeared from the collective consciousness of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The failed prophecies of preceding decades are all but forgotten. George Orwell perfectly described this process:

The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth. [Part 1, Ch. VII; p. 75 hardcover; p. 64 paperback]

Since the Party is in full control of all recorded, and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. [Part 2, Ch. IX; p. 215 hardcover; p. 176 paperback]

The Bible says that Jehovah is a God of truth, and it would seem that a passage from James Moffatt’s translation of Job 13:7-12 is applicable here:

Will you bring unfair arguments for God? Will you tell lies on his behalf? Will you be sycophants of the Almighty? Will you be special pleaders for God? Will it be well when he probes you? Can you deceive him like a man? No, he will punish you, if you are sycophants of his in secret. Should not his majesty cause you to shudder? Should not the dread of him seize you? Your maxims crumble like mere ashes, your arguments collapse like mounds of clay.

In conclusion, it appears that the Watchtower Society does not want its members to exercise their thinking abilities. Rather, it wants them to prostrate themselves before it.

---

. . . or How Magicians Write Essays

Alan Feuerbacher

Along with many other features of what it calls “the composite sign of Christ’s presence since 1914,” the Watchtower Society has long claimed that earthquakes have been far more frequent and severe in the 20th century than previously, and have caused far more deaths and damage. The December 1, 1993 Watchtower virtually abandons these claims, but does so in a manner calculated not to let on to the average Jehovah’s Witness that the earlier claims have indeed been abandoned. We will here examine the earlier claims and see how the Society neatly reduces them to almost no significance without letting on that it has done it. The Watchtower article is a fine example from the Society’s arsenal of intellectual magic tricks and illustrates how to divert the reader’s attention from the main issue.

First let us look at quotations showing that the Society has stated clearly that the number of earthquakes occurring each year has been much higher in the 20th century, especially since 1914.

Since 1914 earthquakes have occurred more often than ever before. [From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained, 1958, p. 183]

Jesus said there would also be “earthquakes in one place after another.” Therefore, for this to be the time of Jesus’ second presence earthquakes would have to be in evidence in an outstanding way. Are they? There can be no question about it. Terrifying earthquakes have rocked the globe with increasing severity and frequency during recent years. A university seismologist declared: “Something is going on all over the planet that is hard to put a finger on. Great forces are at work stirring up things far underground causing vast land drifts on several continents. The further you are from the last big earthquake, the nearer you are to the next.” Significantly, since 1914 there have been more major earthquakes than in any previous period of similar length in recorded history. [Watchtower, October 15, 1961, p. 628]

After 1914, particularly since 1948, great subterranean forces seem to have been at work, convulsing our planet, rippling its surface with tremors and almost annually producing one or more disastrous earthquakes. [Watchtower, November 15, 1964, p. 678]

Earthquakes continue to rock the earth as Jesus forecast for this generation…. It has been reported that the severity and deadliness of earthquakes have increased markedly since the “time of the end” commenced for this old system in 1914. [Watchtower, May 1, 1970, p. 270]

Jesus foretold earthquakes in great number and magnitude as a feature of the sign of his second presence…. Since 1914 C.E., and especially since 1948, there has been an increase in the number of earthquakes, especially of major ones. [Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 478]

Jesus did not foretell any one specific earthquake, but he did prophesy about a period of time when there would be particularly great and widespread earthquake activity…. The “great earthquakes,” those occurring since 1914 in “one place after another,” verify the accuracy of this understanding of Jesus’ words…. The great earthquakes of the past were generally isolated events occurring years, even centuries, apart. There were not many of them in a single generation. [Awake!, May 8, 1974, pp. 17-18]

Commissioner Gregorio Andal of the Commission on Volcanology said: “The earth’s crust at this point is in a turbulent condition and earthquakes can happen anywhere in the world, anytime.” Another group of scientists believes that some seismic process, not fully understood at this time, may be taking place. [Awake!, January 8, 1977, pp. 15-6]

The dramatic upsurge in earthquake activity since 1914 helps to prove that we are living in the time of Jesus’ presence. These mighty temblors fulfill his prophecy: “There will be great earthquakes.” [Awake!, February 22, 1977, p. 11]

Truly, earthquakes have abounded since 1914 — as part of the “sign.” [Watchtower, January 15, 1978, p. 10]

Discussing recent earthquakes, the Italian journal Il Piccolo observed: “Our generation lives in a dangerous period of high seismic activity, as statistics show….” Of course, such an increase in seismic activity is no surprise to those familiar with Bible prophecy. [Watchtower, June 15, 1979, p. 11]

Has the frequency of earthquakes really increased? The Italian magazine Il Piccolo observed: “Our generation lives in a dangerous period of high seismic activity, as statistics show.” And then it produced figures for the past thousand years to prove it. [Awake!, October 8, 1980, p. 21]

Also, “earthquakes” are included as part of the “sign.” An upsurge in earthquakes since 1914? This may sound surprising. But the statistics are even more surprising! As Geo Malagoli commented in Il Piccolo: “During a period of 1,059 years [from 856 to 1914] reliable sources list only 24 major earthquakes.” His figures show that during those years an average of 1,800 persons died each year in earthquakes, whereas there have been 43 major earthquakes since 1915, and these have killed an average of 25,300 persons a year. [Let Your Kingdom Come, 1981, p. 113]

From 1914 until now, there have been many more major earthquakes than in any other like period in recorded history. [Watchtower, April 15, 1982, p. 9]

Jesus foretold “great earthquakes.” (Luke 21:11) Has the frequency of these really changed?… Since 1914 the yearly average of reported severe earthquakes has soared to over 11 times what it was during the thousand years before then. [Awake!, October 22, 1984, pp. 6-7]

The frequency of major earthquakes has increased about 20 times what it was on an average during the two thousand years before 1914. [Survival into a New Earth, 1984, p. 23]

In comparison with the previous 2,000 years, the average per year has been 20 times as great since 1914. [Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 236]

Based on available records, the 20th century does significantly overshadow the past in seismic activity. Publications of the Watch Tower Society have repeatedly called attention to this. [Watchtower, January 15, 1987, p. 21]

With adequate preparation, many people have survived major disasters. Michiko, now 76 years old, says: “When I was a child, old people said major earthquakes came once in 60 years. I have often thought that their words have not applied in my lifetime. I have known countless severe earthquakes.” [Awake!, December 22, 1987, p. 27]

Jesus foretold earthquakes in significant number and intensity as a feature of the sign of his presence… Since 1914 C.E., there has been an increase in the number of earthquakes, resulting in much distress. [Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, p. 670]

The 20th century has been a century of earthquakes. [The Bible — God’s Word or Man’s?, 1989, p. 141

In 1987 Carl Olof Jonsson and Wolfgang Herbst published the book The “Sign” of the Last Days — When? It showed conclusively that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is pretty much the same as in other centuries. After that the Society began to tone down its claims about the severity of earthquakes.

For example, the above quoted January 15, 1987 Watchtower, on pages 21-2, acknowledged that

many seismologists believe that earthquakes are no greater or more frequent now than they were in the past. Conversely, others conclude that our generation has experienced earthquakes more frequently than did previous ones. Based on available records, the 20th century does significantly overshadow the past in seismic activity. Records of earthquakes before 1914 are not complete, however. And earlier generations did not have scientific means of measurement that would permit us reliably to compare the magnitudes of earthquakes past and present.

Then followed a discussion that tried to make “earthquake distress” the focal point of the supposed increase.

The October 15, 1988 Watchtower, on page 3, claimed that according to data listed in two books (the data was acknowledged to be incomplete), earthquakes have been much worse since 1914, but “even granting that records from past centuries are incomplete, we cannot escape the conclusion that in our time mankind has been greatly affected by earthquakes.” An April 8, 1988 Awake! article was very significant in that it made no mention at all that earthquakes are more severe than in earlier times. In fact, with respect to all the features of the “composite sign”:

Let us remember that while Jesus’ prophecy indicates a climax in man’s history as all these events come together in the same generation, they do not require that they be greater in number or magnitude than in any previous generation, even though that might be so. [p. 4]

However, the April 1, 1991 Watchtower (p. 6) restated the earlier position:

The different features of the composite sign foretold by Jesus have never before been fulfilled all together in such a short period of time with such intensity and with such far-reaching consequences.

The March 22, 1993 Awake! was again vague about the intensity of earthquakes, merely saying on page 8 that “their magnitude also adds weight.”

In addition to claiming that the frequency of earthquakes is much greater in the 20th century, the Watchtower Society has claimed that they are more destructive of life and property. The following quotations show this clearly.

As Jesus foretold, after 1914 a series of earthquakes rocked the globe, causing more damage and casualties than ever before…. Earthquakes have continued to occur with frightening intensity, taking a toll of lives greater than in any other period of human history. [Did Man Get Here By Evolution Or By Creation?, 1967, p. 164; Watchtower, April 1, 1967, p. 198]

What about the earthquakes? Has there been anything unusual about these in the generation since 1914? [Subtitle “Earthquakes Since the Year 1914”] One way to prove clearly that the generation since 1914 is unusual as far as earthquakes are concerned is to consider how many deaths they have caused. [Statistics are cited]…. In other words, up to 30 percent of all those killed in earthquakes over the last thousand-year period have died since 1914! The other 70 percent or so of the deaths were spread out over almost nine hundred and fifty years. [Watchtower, February 1, 1974, pp. 72-3]

Also on page 73 a sidebar is presented entitled “Earthquake Deaths Each Year,” containing the captions “Before 1914 — 3,000” and “Since 1914 — 15,000.”

Well over 100,000 persons have died in great earthquakes just since 1968! Those injured, homeless or suffering property damage number in the millions. This represents a tremendous increase over what took place in past centuries. [Watchtower, April 15, 1974, p. 243]

What shows that Jesus’ words, “there will be great earthquakes,” have been fulfilled since 1914 C.E.? — Luke 21:11. The earthquakes since 1914 C.E. have been “great” in terms of power, lives lost and property damage. In fact, their destructiveness has been more widespread and greater than in the years prior to 1914 C.E., claiming approximately 30 percent of all persons killed in earthquakes during the last thousand-year period. [Watchtower, May 15, 1974, p. 318]

Counting from about 1,000 years ago, the average yearly death rate from earthquakes was 3,000 before 1914; but since then that average has leaped to 15,000 per year. [Awake!, January 8, 1977, p. 16]

The following paragraphs are from Awake!, February 22, 1977, p. 11.

Interestingly, for a period of 1,059 years (856 to 1914 C.E.), reliable sources list only 24 major earthquakes, with 1,972,952 fatalities. But compare that with the accompanying partial list citing 43 instances of earthquakes, in which 1,579,209 persons died during just the 62 years from 1915 to 1976 C.E. Here, year by year, are the locations of some of the quakes of this period, along with statistics on the fatalities:

1915-1983:
Year	Location	Deaths
1915	Italy	29,970
1920	China	180,000
1923	Japan	143,000
1927	China	200,000
1932	China	70,000
1933	U.S.A.	115
1935	India (Pakistan)	60,000
1939	Chile	30,000
1939	Turkey	23,000
1946	Turkey	1,300
1946	Japan	2,000
1948	Japan	5,131
1949	Ecuador	6,000
1950	India	1,500
1953	Turkey	1,200
1953	Greece	424
1954	Algeria	1,657
1956	Afghanistan	2,000
1957	Iran (Northern)	2,500
1957	Iran (Western)	2,000
1960	Chile	5,700
1960	Morocco	12,000
1962	Iran	10,000
1963	Yugoslavia	1,100
1964	Alaska	131
1966	Turkey	2,529
1969	Iran	11,588
1970	Turkey	1,086
1970	Peru	66,794
1971	U.S.A.	65
1972	Iran	5,057
1972	Nicaragua	6,000
1973	Mexico (Western)	52
1973	Mexico (Central)	700
1974	Pakistan	5,200
1975	China	200
1975	Turkey	2,312
1976	Guatemala	23,000
1976	Italy	900
1976	Bali	600
1976	China *	242,000
1976	Philippines	3,373
1976	Turkey	3,790
1977-1983 addition +		44,623
Total 1915-1983:		1,210,597
Annual average:		17,545

The dramatic upsurge in earthquake activity since 1914 helps to prove that we are living in the time of Jesus’ presence. These mighty temblors fulfill his prophecy: “There will be great earthquakes.” [Awake!, February 22, 1977, p. 11]

Discussing recent earthquakes, the Italian journal “Il Piccolo” observed: “Our generation lives in a dangerous period of high seismic activity, as statistics show. In fact, during a period of 1,059 years (from 856 to 1914) reliable sources list only 24 major earthquakes causing 1,973,000 deaths. However, if we compare this figure to the partially complete list of recent disasters, we find that 1,600,000 persons have died in only 63 years, as a result of 43 earthquakes which occurred from 1915 to 1978.” Of course, such an increase in seismic activity is no surprise to those familiar with Bible prophecy. [Watchtower, June 15, 1979, p. 11]

Note that Il Piccolo borrowed its figures without attribution from the above quoted February 22, 1977 Awake! The June 15, 1979 Watchtower borrowed in turn from Il Piccolo but did not inform the reader that Il Piccolo borrowed from the earlier Awake! So here the Society was quoting itself while pretending the data came from an independent source.

There have been earthquakes throughout history. But how does the period since World War I compare? In Il Piccolo, Geo Malagoli observes: [Il Piccolo is cited, and a sidebar is presented containing the statements “Up to 1914 — 1,800 a year” “Since 1914 — 25,300 a year”]…. Persons may say that the growing world population and the size of cities account for the higher earthquake death toll since World War I. Even if this is the reason, it does not change what has happened. [Happiness — How to Find It, 1980, pp. 148-9]

Very significantly, our century has seen more earthquake destruction than any other. From the time Jesus gave his prophecy until 1914, history records five earthquakes that each took 100,000 lives or more. In the period since 1914 at least four more such superearthquakes have occurred — in China in 1920, in Tokyo in 1923, in China in 1927, and, of course, the Tangshan quake in 1976. Truly, this generation has experienced not just earthquakes but “great earthquakes,” as Luke’s Gospel account puts it. [Awake!, July 8, 1982, p. 16]

As the accompanying Chart III indicates, loss of human life due to earthquakes has mushroomed since 1914. [Chart III is entitled “Earthquake Deaths” and contains the captions “Up to 1914 — 1,800 a year” and “Since 1914 — 25,300 a year”] [Watchtower, May 15, 1983, p. 6]

On the average, about ten times as many have died each year from earthquakes since 1914 as in previous centuries. [Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?, 1985, p. 225]

In the same way that in the late 1980s the Society toned down its earlier adamant claims about earthquake frequency, it has done so with the number of deaths due to earthquakes. This is apparently due to earthquake death figures given in the book by Jonsson and Herbst. Recent Watchtower publications tend to be rather vague about just what is being claimed, not just about earthquakes, but also about the other supposed features of the “composite sign.” The effect of this vagueness is that no one can be sure just what the Society is claiming. This allows for great flexibility in interpreting what was said.

The tendency for the Society to drift toward vagueness and to shift the focus of discussion when hard data has proven its position untenable reaches a new height in the articles “Natural Disasters — A Sign of the Times?” and “Natural Disasters — Is God Responsible?” in the December 1, 1993 Watchtower. Finally admitting that earthquake frequency has always been the same, [“The earth and its dynamic forces have more or less remained the same throughout the ages.” — p. 6] the articles bury this admission in an avalanche of arguments that try to show that natural disasters of all sorts, even ones Jesus never mentioned, are on the increase. Typical is the discussion on page 3, which asks:

Are we seeing more catastrophic earthquakes… than did generations past? And in spite of advances in science and technology, are proportionately more people suffering as a result? To many the answer is yes. For example, the magazine New Scientist warns that “the world can expect more disasters in the 1990s than in past decades.”

Then follows several more quotations about a general increase in natural disasters in the past few decades, and the potential for more increase during and after the 1990s. In the first part of the first article, Matthew 24:3-14 is quoted and commented upon:

“Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.” With these words Jesus Christ explained to his disciples 19 centuries ago that such disastrous events, together with an increase of lawlessness and the worldwide preaching of the good news of God’s Kingdom, would introduce a composite sign marking “the conclusion of the system of things.”

Note that in the verse quoted, Jesus explicitly named three things that would be the beginning of pangs of distress. He did not say “there will be pangs of distress, of which the following are examples.” There is a big distinction between predicting an assortment of general disasters, and predicting certain specific ones. The accounts in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 make very clear that Jesus predicted only certain kinds of disasters, namely, wars, food shortages, earthquakes and pestilences. The Watchtower article deliberately glosses over this distinction by saying that Jesus predicted, not just those specific events, but “such disastrous events.” This gives the impression, without actually having said so, that Jesus was really talking about many more disasters than just the ones he mentioned. In this manner the reader is set up for the writer’s next arguments, which subtly tie quotations about general natural disasters to the specific one the writer really wants to address, namely, earthquakes. The technique is demonstrated in the second paragraph:

Are we seeing more catastrophic earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and famines than did generations past?

Although Jesus only mentioned two out of these five types of events, they are now tied together in the reader’s mind. The quotations that follow in the article, concerning general natural disasters, reinforce the connection. Interestingly, the article makes no direct claim that these disasters have increased since 1914. In any case the arguments reduce to simple assertions that an increase in population-related disasters along with a heightened perception of them fulfills Jesus’ prophecy of Matthew 24:3-14.

By the end of the first article the average reader has the impression that Jesus foretold all kinds of distress, even though he only mentioned four kinds. The reader will not notice that the conclusion the final paragraph of the first article makes is further leading him so that he will not notice the coming abandonment of the long-standing claim that earthquakes are much more severe in the 20th century:

Since the Bible foretells such a time of great distress, does it mean that God is responsible for the disasters and the suffering resulting from them?

The reader is led away from the real point by an emotional appeal — asking whether our loving God is responsible. The writer is a true master of misdirection. Let us see how he further conceals his purpose.

The second article, “Natural Disasters — Is God Responsible?”, asks the question in its title, and then defines a natural disaster as a violent physical event that causes “great destruction of life and property and the disruption of the normal way of life.”

Along the way earthquakes are mentioned prominently as examples of natural disasters. Nowhere does the article claim directly that earthquake deaths are more frequent in the 20th century than previously, but the earlier citations about the general increase of natural disasters give the impression that earthquake deaths are indeed more frequent. This omission avoids having to introduce actual death statistics, which is desirable from the Society’s standpoint because a comparison of 20th century death rates to those in the 18th and 19th centuries shows that the total number of deaths is pretty much the same. This is particularly devastating to the Society’s claims, because it means that the per capita death rate is actually much lower in the 20th century, since the total population is much higher. A comparison of death rates, borrowed from Jonsson and Herbst, is presented in the appendix at the end of this paper.

Thus, having slipped in the impression that earthquakes are more destructive in the 20th century, the article then poses the question:

Thus, when it comes to the increasing destructiveness of natural disasters, we must ask, Have the natural elements become more violent? Or have human factors contributed to the problem?

The article then says that God has created the natural forces and can control them if he wants to, setting the stage for further misdirection. The reader is now concentrating on finding a reason for not holding God responsible for natural disasters, and the article asks:

Can we hold God responsible for the increased havoc and devastation that have resulted from natural disasters in recent times? To answer this question, we must first consider whether there is evidence that the forces of nature have recently become dramatically more violent, perhaps even out of control.

If God is causing or allowing the forces of nature to be out of control, then he is of course directly responsible for any destruction caused by them. The reader is now eager to find a reason to absolve God from such responsibility, and is ready to hear that such disasters really are not fundamentally any worse than they have always been, and so God cannot be responsible:

In this regard, note what the book Natural Disasters — Acts of God or Acts of Man? has to say: “There is no evidence that the climatological mechanisms associated with droughts, floods and cyclones are changing. And no geologist is claiming that the earth movements associated with earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami (earthquake waves) are becoming more violent.” Similarly, the book Earthshock observes: “The rocks of every continent contain a record of innumerable major and minor geological events, every one of which would be a catastrophic disaster to mankind if they occurred today — and it is scientifically certain that such events will occur again and again in the future.” In other words, the earth and its dynamic forces have more or less remained the same throughout the ages. Hence, whether or not some statistics indicate an increase of some forms of geologic or other activity, the earth has not become uncontrollably violent in recent times. [boldface added]

Since “the earth and its dynamic forces have more or less remained the same throughout the ages,” earthquakes have also. Thus, with a stroke of the pen, the Society cancels all of its statements that since 1914 earthquakes have occurred more often than ever before. The average reader is completely unaware that anything has been changed, because he has been concentrating on absolving God from responsibility for natural disasters. The article then provides a reason for the absolution — irresponsible human activity. However, it continues to speak about a general increase in frequency and destructiveness of natural disasters, and earthquakes, of course, are in that category:

What, then, accounts for the increase in the frequency and destructiveness of natural disasters that we read about? If the forces of nature are not to blame, the finger of guilt seems to point to the human element. And, indeed, authorities have recognized that human activities have made our environment both more prone to natural disasters and more vulnerable to them.

So, by a kind of “guilt by association” earthquakes still remain, in the mind of the average reader, extremely frequent and destructive in the 20th century, even though no direct statement to that effect has been made, and even though earlier claims about frequency have actually been reversed. Ten years from now, after other “softening” arguments have been advanced, the Society will be able to point to this article and say that it had “corrected” an erroneous viewpoint way back in 1993. Any of Jehovah’s Witnesses who then disagree will be unable to argue differently.

---

Appendix

Are earthquakes in our day really killing more people than ever before? In particular, was there a change after 1914?

In The “Sign” of the Last Days — When? Jonsson and Herbst compiled a list of earthquake deaths for the 68 year period from 1915-1983 and compared them to the 68 year periods 1715-1783 and 1847-1914. The result was that on average about 17,500 people died per year in the 1915-1983 period, while about 20,000 and 18,000 died annually in the latter two periods. These variations are statistically insignificant. We here reproduce the tables from Jonsson and Herbst.

A COMPARISON OF EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS
1715-1783				1915-1983a
Year	Location	Deaths		Year	Location	Deaths
1715	Algeria	20,000		1915	Italy	29,970
1717	Algeria	20,000		1920	China	180,000
1718	China	43,000		1923	Japan	143,000
1719	Asia Minor	1,000		1927	China	200,000
1721	Iran	100,000		1932	China	70,000
1724	Peru (tsunami)	18,000		1933	U.S.A.	115
1725	Peru	1,500		1935	India (Pakistan)	60,000
1725	China	556		1939	Chile	30,000
1726	Italy	6,000		1939	Turkey	23,000
1727	Iran	77,000		1946	Turkey	1,300
1730	Italy	200		1946	Japan	2,000
1730	China	100,000		1948	Japan	5,131
1730	Japan	137,000		1949	Ecuador	6,000
1731	China	100,000		1950	India	1,500
1732	Italy	1,940		1953	Turkey	1,200
1736	China	260		1953	Greece	424
1737	India	300,000		1954	Algeria	1,657
1739	China	50,000		1956	Afghanistan	2,000
1746	Peru	4,800		1957	Iran (Northern)	2,500
1749	Spain	5,000		1957	Iran (Western)	2,000
1750	Greece	2,000		1960	Chile	5,700
1751	Japan	2,000		1960	Morocco	12,000
1751	China	900		1962	Iran	10,000
1752	Syria	20,000		1963	Yugoslavia	1,100
1754	Egypt	40,000		1964	Alaska	131
1755	China	270		1966	Turkey	2,529
1755	Iran	1,200		1969	Iran	11,588
1755	Portugal	60,000		1970	Turkey	1,086
1755	Morocco	12,000		1970	Peru	66,794
1757	Italy	10,000		1971	U.S.A.	65
1759	Syria	30,000		1972	Iran	5,057
1763	China	1,000		1972	Nicaragua	6,000
1765	China	1,189		1973	Mexico (Western)	52
1766	Japan	1,335		1973	Mexico (Central)	700
1771	Japan (tsunami)	11,700		1974	Pakistan	5,200
1773	Guatemala	20,000		1975	China	200
1774	Newfoundland	300		1975	Turkey	2,312
1778	Iran (Kashan)	8,000		1976	Guatemala	23,000
1780	Iran (Tabriz)	100,000		1976	Italy	900
1780	Iran (Khurasan)	3,000		1976	Bali	600
1783	Italy (Calabria)	60,000		1976	Chinab	242,000
1783	Italy (Palmi)	1,504		1976	Philippines	3,373
1783	Italy (Monteleone)	1,191		1976	Turkey	3,790
				1977-1983 additionc		44,623
Total 1715-1783:		1,373,845		Total 1915-1983:		1,210,597
Annual average:		19,911		Annual average:		17,545
(a) See Awake! February 22, 1977. (b) See page 65, footnote 34; compare Awake! July 8, 1982, p. 13. (c) Ganse & Nelson list a death figure of 44,623 for this period.

Did 1914 really bring a change?

Year	Place	Deaths		Year	Place	Deaths
1847	Japan	34,000		1882	Italy	2,313
1850	China	300-400,000		1883	Italy	1,990
1851	Iran	2,000		1883	Greece, Asia Minor	15,000
1851	Italy	14,000		1883	Java	36,400
1853	Iran (Shiraz)	12,000		1885	India	3,000
1853	Iran (Isfahan)	10,000		1887	France	1,000
1854	Japan	34,000		1887	China	2,000
1854	El Salvador	1,000		1891	Japan	7,283
1855	Japan	6,757		1893	Western Turkmenia	18,000
1856	Java	3,000		1896	Japan	27,122
1857	Italy	10,000		1897	India (Assam)	1,542
1857	Italy	12,000		1902	Guatemala	2,000
1859	Ecuador	5,000		1902	Turkestan	4,562
1859	Turkey	15,000		1903	Turkey	6,000
1861	Argentina	7,000		1905	India (Kangra)	19,000
1863	Philippines	10,000		1905	Italy	2,500
1868	Peru	40,000		1906	Colombia	1,000
1868	Ecuador, Colombia	70,000		1906	Formosa	1,300
1872	Asia Minor	1,800		1906	Chile	20,000
1875	Venezuela, Colombia	16,000		1907	Jamaica	1,400
1876	Bay of Bengal	215,000		1907	Central Asia	12,000
1879	Iran	2,000		1908	Italy	110,000
1879	China	10,430		1909	Iran	6-8,000
1880	Greece (Chios)	4,000		1910	Costa Rica	1,750
1881	Asia Minor	8,866		1912	Marmara Sea Coast	1,958
Total victims for 68 years previous to 1914:					1,148,973-1,250,973
Annual average:					17,149-18,671

SOURCES: Båth: Introduction to Seismology(1979); Richter: Elementary Seismology (1958); Imamura: Theoretical and Applied Seismology (1937); Ganse-Nelson: Catalog of Significant Earthquakes (1981); Ambraseys: Earth-quake Hazard and Vulnerability(1981); Ambraseys-Melville: A History of Persian Earthquakes (1982); Latter: Natural Disasters (Advancement of Science, June 1969); Press-Siever: Earth (1974); Handbuch der Ceophysik (ed. Prof. B Gutenberg), Band IV (Berlin 1932).

As the above data show, reasonably complete studies prove beyond a doubt that the 20th century has not experienced any statistically significant change in earthquake deaths compared to earlier times. As one seismologist wrote, “For earlier centuries we do not have the same reliable statistics, but there are no indications at all of any increase in the activity in the course of time.” Of course, the December 1, 1993 Watchtower mentioned none of this data. Most individual Jehovah’s Witnesses will never examine the data for themselves and so will credulously accept the Society’s word. Even if they did examine the data, their prejudices would almost always cause them to reject it in favor of what “God’s channel” tells them.

(For a more thorough examination of these issues, see The Sign of the Last Days — When? by Carl Olof Jonsson and Wolfgang Herbst.)

---

Alan Feuerbacher

Jehovah’s Witnesses are often criticized for being intolerant and narrow minded when it comes to the views of other religions. Critics claim that they teach that they and only they will be saved. In public, JWs often claim that this is not so, but that they allow that God is the judge and that non-JWs might be saved.

What is the truth of these claims? This essay demonstrates the truth by showing exactly what the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses have printed in the publications of the Watchtower Society. In general, bolded typeface will be used to highlight particularly important points.

The 1989 Watchtower book Reasoning from the Scriptures defines “salvation” this way (p. 356):

Definition: Preservation or deliverance from danger or destruction. That deliverance may be from the hands of oppressors or persecutors. For all true Christians, Jehovah provides through his Son deliverance from the present wicked system of things as well as salvation from bondage to sin and death. For a great crowd of faithful servants of Jehovah living during “the last days,” salvation will include preservation through the great tribulation.

According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, “the great tribulation” will be climaxed by “the battle of Armageddon” wherein all of mankind not doing God’s will are to be destroyed without hope of a resurrection. According to JW teaching, ultimate “salvation” will result in some people living forever in heaven, and most of saved mankind living forever on earth. Most of those who died before Armageddon will eventually be resurrected and will also live forever on earth or in heaven.

Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the emotional impact of being accused of intolerance, and of teaching that only they will be saved. They understand the criticism of such exclusiveness. When speaking to non-JWs, rank and file JWs will often try to avoid that criticism by not answering it, or by sidestepping the criticism by answering a somewhat different question. Knowledgeable critics know very well that the corporate entity that controls the activity of the worldwide community of Jehovah’s Witnesses, i.e., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, has only existed since 1884, and so when they voice this criticism they’re obviously mainly concerned with what JWs teach about salvation through “the great tribulation” and “the battle of Armageddon”, and not with the resurrection of dead people.

Why do rank and file JWs tend to mislead people about their beliefs on salvation? The obvious answer is that they’re embarrassed to admit to teaching intolerance. Another is that their leaders teach them to give misleading answers. Note the way this is done on the official media website:

Authorized Site of the Office of Public Information of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Frequently Asked Questions

Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved?

No. Many millions who have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God’s time of judgment, and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus’ hands, not ours.

The general question of salvation has been turned into the more narrow one of “who will be resurrected?” The second sentence is irrelevant to the question because questioners are almost invariably concerned with who JWs teach will be saved through Armageddon. The last couple of sentences attempt to make Jehovah’s Witnesses sound tolerant, and to claim they teach that only God determines who will be saved.

A 1989 publication of Jehovah’s Witnesses that is intended for the public, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, answers the question similarly (p. 29):

Questions Often Asked by Interested Persons

Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?

No. Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the “great tribulation,” and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus’ hands, not ours.

This answer misleads the reader as shown above, but specifically twists the general question of salvation into one about who might “take a stand for truth” between now and “the great tribulation”.

The above represent typical claims that the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes to the public. Now we will see what this organization teaches its own members, by examining its printed teachings:

From The Watchtower, September 1, 1989, p. 19: “Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium”:

Only Jehovah’s Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the “great crowd,” as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil. (Revelation 7:9-17; 2 Corinthians 4:4) They will make up the “flesh” that Jesus Christ said would be saved through the worst tribulation of all human history. As it was in the days of Noah, said Jesus, so it would be in the day when He would be revealed. Inside the ark that took many years of organized effort to complete, only eight human souls survived the global Deluge. They survived as a united family group. (Matthew 24:22, 37-39; Luke 17:26-30) Noah’s wife corresponds to the bride of Christ, and his sons and daughters-in-law to Jesus’ present-day “other sheep,” who have grown into an increasing great crowd, the final proportions of which we do not now know. (John 10:16) For survival into the Millennium under the Greater Noah, Jesus Christ, they have to remain organized with the anointed remnant, “the chosen ones” on account of whom the days of the “great tribulation” will be cut short.

From The Watchtower, December 1, 1999, p. 18:

Be Happy Readers of the Book of Revelation
The message is clear: If we want to survive Armageddon, we must remain spiritually alert and keep the symbolic garments that identify us as faithful Witnesses of Jehovah God.

These statements directly contradict the statements intended for public media consumption as quoted above.

Those familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses know that they teach that everyone not serving God when Armageddon strikes will be destroyed, and that “the true Christian congregation” is comprised only of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Here is what the internal publication Our Kingdom Ministry (April 1997, p. 3) says about this:

Directing Students to the Organization Behind Our Name

Shoulder the Responsibility: Every disciple maker must realize that it is his responsibility to direct the Bible student to God’s organization. (1 Tim. 4:16) Each study session should be viewed as a stepping-stone toward the happy day when the new one will symbolize his dedication to Jehovah by water baptism. One of the questions that he will be asked during the baptism ceremony is: “Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?” Hence, it is important that he realize he cannot serve God without actively associating with the true Christian congregation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that only they speak “the ‘pure language’ that is spoken about in Zephaniah 3:9”, which they say “is a proper understanding of the truth about God and his purposes.” (The Watchtower,April 15, 1991, p. 28; April 1, 1991, pp. 21-2) “Jehovah’s Witnesses are unique in ever so many ways. They alone speak the ‘pure language.'” (The Watchtower, January 15, 1992, p. 24) Given this, the following again demonstrates what JWs teach about who will be saved. From The Watchtower, January 15, 1991, p. 29:

The Pure Language Unites a Great Crowd of Worshipers

“Become United by the Pure Language” was the title of Friday’s public talk. The speaker showed that … All need to be concerned about learning and speaking the pure language, for only those doing so will survive Armageddon.

From The Watchtower, May 1, 1991, p. 14:

Similarly today, “a great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep” gathered out of all nations will survive Armageddon into God’s new world. (Revelation 7:9; John 10:14-16) Only those who learn and speak the pure language will be joyful survivors.

At one time, Jehovah’s Witnesses referred to themselves as the “New World Society” and stated repeatedly that only members of this “Society” would be saved. In fact, it would form the nucleus of earthly society after Armageddon. The Watchtower of August 15, 1953, p. 494, stated:

A Watch Tower Tract Society existed and spread God’s message before ever Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was incorporated in 1884 under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. After the battle of Armageddon obliterates this old world the New World society will continue on, for it will be approved and authorized by the only government then in power, the divine government. It will form the base, the nucleus, around which the population of the “new earth” will grow and fill all this planet.

From The Watchtower, July 15, 1958, p. 439:

Find Your Place in the New World Society
Jehovah God has a place for each one of us in his organization, just as he has a place for the two hundred million times two hundred billion stars of space. Under Jehovah and Christ Jesus, for those of the remnant and those of the “other sheep,” for appointed servants and for congregation publishers, for those old and those young in years, for part-time and for full-time ministers–yes, indeed, in this highly organized New World society there is a properly assigned place for each and all. It is therefore most important for every living individual to find his appropriate place quickly in this association. It is not less important either, as the following article shows, that, having found one’s place in the constellation of the New World society, one should faithfully remain in it if one hopes to survive Armageddon and live forever in eternal peace and happiness.

From The Watchtower, August 15, 1953, pp. 500-1:

Living Now as a New World Society
If we refuse organization instructions, if we forsake the gathering of ourselves together to avoid organization and its obligations, where could we go after Armageddon? Will there be separatists after Armageddon who will each make himself his own society and live as a hermit in a spacious earth, avoiding human contact and preferring animal society? For anyone to forsake the organized congregation of those who are destined to survive Armageddon means for that one never to get past Armageddon into the New World and its theocratic system. Like Noah’s family, we must now get into the ark all together!

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that only those who share with them in their “Kingdom preaching work” and obey what they call “the good news of the Kingdom” will be saved. From The Watchtower, September 15, 1992, pp. 23-4:

Soon, at Armageddon, Jehovah God will cause all “the wisdom of the wise men” to perish. He will shove aside all “the intelligence of the intellectual men” who made predictions of how their new world order would bring better conditions for mankind. “The war of the great day of God the Almighty” will incinerate all the sophistry, philosophy, and wisdom of this world. (1 Corinthians 1:19; Revelation 16:14-16) The only ones who will survive that war and gain life in God’s new world are those who obey what this world calls foolishness–yes, Jehovah’s glorious Kingdom good news.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that they have “the one true religion” and that during “the great tribulation” God will destroy all other, i.e., “false” religions. The Watchtower of January 15, 1976, p. 47, said:

One thing hard for many people today to understand is that there can be and there is only one true religion. Why do they rebel against such fact? It is because this would mean that all the other religions are false, and this would include their own religion. Hence, they will need to have the true fact demonstrated to them forcibly. This will be done in the near future, for then, in the midst of the world’s greatest tribulation, all false religions will be wiped out and only the one true religion will survive. It will be delivered from the most tremendous anti-religious movement in all human history.

The Watchtower of April 15, 1969, p. 231 stated:

Yes, there is only “one faith,” that is, only one faith that is recognized and approved by Almighty God. Who, then, are the ones who form the body of true worshipers today? On the basis of the evidence, which is known or available to persons in all parts of the earth, we do not hesitate to say that they are the Christian witnesses of Jehovah.

The 1989 book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth said (p. 190):

Who, then, are the ones who form the body of true worshipers today? We do not hesitate to say that they are Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Watchtower of November 1, 1968, pp. 656-7, was clear:

The Christian “congregation of the living God” during the first century knew that it had the truth and the pure, undefiled religion or form of worship. Why should it be strange or thought to be presumptuous if the remnant of that same congregation today claims to have the true religion? This remnant of dedicated, baptized followers of Jesus Christ have obeyed the divine command given in Revelation 18:4 and have come out of Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion, including Christendom. On coming out of Babylon the Great they have not joined any antireligious organization such as the atheists, the freethinkers, the evolutionists, the Communists. No, but they have come out of the world empire of false Babylonish religion into the one true religion as the people of Jehovah God, “my people,” as He calls them. Attack all false religion they do, not like and in company with the godless antireligious groups of this world, but in the way that the apostles of Jesus Christ did, with the “sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word,” the only successful weapon.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that they and they alone comprise “God’s people” on earth today. The Watchtower of June 1, 1994, p. 27 said:

What identifies Jehovah’s Witnesses as God’s people? First, they accept the entire Bible as God’s Word…

The Watchtower, April 1, 1992, p. 12, stated:

The ones calling on people with the hope-filled message of God’s new world are described at Acts 15:14 as “a people for [God’s] name.” Who bear Jehovah’s name and give the global witness about Jehovah and his Kingdom? The historical record of the 20th century answers: only Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Watchtower, May 15, 1998, p. 17:

The modern history of God’s people, especially during the world wars, makes it plain that many of Jehovah’s Witnesses actually experienced beatings, and far worse, at the hands of persecutors.

Who only will be saved through Armageddon? From the 1996 brochure What Does God Require of Us?, p. 10:

Before this earth can become a paradise, wicked people must be removed. (Psalm 37:38) This will happen at Armageddon, which is God’s war to end wickedness. Next, Satan will be imprisoned for 1,000 years. This means that no wicked ones will be left to spoil the earth. Only God’s people will survive.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the only ones who can be saved are those who view the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely, the Governing Body of “Christ’s anointed ‘brothers,’ who form the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ class”, as the only true Christian leaders to whom they must look for direction. From The Watchtower, April 1, 1982, pp. 30-1:

Survival or Destruction at the “Great Tribulation”
Flight to the Kingdom for Survival

¹⁵ Yes, “the great day of Jehovah is near. It is near, and there is a hurrying of it very much.” (Zephaniah 1:14) We are living in a time of judgment when “all the nations” are gathered before Christ Jesus. The people of all those nations are being separated into two classes, the “sheep” and the “goats.” The end result is plainly stated: “everlasting life” for the “sheep,” and “everlasting cutting-off” for the “goats.”–Matthew 25:31-33, 46.

¹⁶ Again showing the finality of Jehovah’s judgment, Paul writes: “It is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you, but, to you who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation [apokalypsis] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction.”–2 Thessalonians 1:6-9.

¹⁷ Notice that the “judicial punishment of everlasting destruction” is executed not only upon “those who make tribulation” for God’s people but also upon “those who do not know God” and “those who do not obey the good news.” In his letter to the Romans, Paul explains why “those who do not know God” are “inexcusable” and why they will be judged. (Romans 1:18-20; 2:5-16) The “angel flying in midheaven,” spoken of in Revelation chapter 14, summons all “who dwell on the earth” to “fear God and give him glory, because the hour of the judgment by him has arrived.” Therefore people are urged to “worship the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea.” Those who fail to do so, and all those who put faith in Satan’s political “wild beast” rather than in God’s Messianic kingdom, will be destroyed with that “beast” in “the great winepress of the anger of God.”–Revelation 14:6, 7, 9, 10, 14-20; 19:11-21.

¹⁸ Any who hope to be “concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger” must “seek righteousness, seek meekness” and ‘practice Jehovah’s own judicial decision,’ rather than criticize it. (Zephaniah 2:2, 3) Any who hope to be considered by God’s Judge as “sheep” to be spared must prove themselves to be “righteous ones,” actively aiding Christ’s anointed “brothers,” who form the “faithful and discreet slave” class. (Matthew 25:33, 40, 46; 24:45-47) The only ones to whom the Bible extends hope of surviving the “great tribulation” are Christ’s “brothers,” or “chosen ones,” and the “great crowd” of “sheep” who ‘render God sacred service’ without letup, constantly saying for all to hear: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” As baptized disciples drawn from “people of all the nations,” this “great crowd” is shepherded by the Lamb, Christ Jesus, who guides them to “fountains of waters of life” that will never fail. “And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.”–Matthew 24:21, 22; 25:34; 28:19, 20; Revelation 7:9-17.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that only those who obey the commands of “God’s organization”, i.e., the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, can be saved. They often compare obedience to this organization to the obedience to God of Noah and his family during the time of Noah’s Flood. From The Watchtower, September 15, 1991, p. 17:

To ensure their salvation, Noah and his family needed to exercise faith. This meant following instructions and the leadings of God’s holy spirit. During the great tribulation, it will be just as imperative that we follow the leadings of the holy spirit and obey Jehovah’s instructions through his organization.

They also teach that their organization is an “ark of salvation”. From The Watchtower, June 1, 1950, p. 176:

The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization.

This “symbolic ark, the spiritual paradise of God’s people” (The Watchtower, March 1, 1997, p. 12), is “the flourishing spiritual paradise wherein men and women of faith may find preservation, with everlasting life in view” and is God’s “arrangement for preservation of the Greater Noah’s antitypical family through the ‘great tribulation.'” (The Watchtower, January 1, 1986, pp. 26, 14) As a prominent Watchtower official stated (The Watchtower, June 1, 1991, p. 27):

Max H. Larson of the Factory Committee spoke first, on the theme “Fellow Workers With Jehovah.” After drawing attention to the ark of preservation that Noah and his family built, he said: ‘Today Jehovah is gathering a worldwide family of millions, and he purposes to take this large family through the great tribulation.’ How? Why, by means of the modern-day ark–the spiritual paradise! ‘You,’ he reminded the graduates, ‘will be going to various parts of the earth, where you will be fellow workers with Jehovah in building the modern-day ark.’

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that “billions” of people will be resurrected after Armageddon but that only “millions” will survive it. The 1983 brochure From Kurukshetra to Armageddon–and Your Survival stated (p. 18) that “only a small minority of mankind will find favour with God and survive the ‘war of the great day of God the Almighty.'” The Watchtower of April 15, 1996, pp. 6-7, stated:

The last days are prophesied to climax or conclude with God’s destruction and removal of all causes of bad news… This climaxes in the war of the great day of God the Almighty, commonly known as the battle of Armageddon… Following these dramatic events, a time of unprecedented good news will come for the earth and its inhabitants. These inhabitants will include the millions who have survived the final war of Armageddon and the billions who will be resurrected from their sleep of death in the graves.

In view of the material presented in this essay, it is clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses have publicly misrepresented themselves on the question of “Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved?”They justify this by claiming that they’re only being “tactful”, according to a discussion outline in the May 1999 issue of Our Kingdom Ministry (p. 2):

15 min: What’s Wrong With My Religion? Discussion between two ministerial servants. We encounter many people who are favorable toward the truth and admire Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, the ties they maintain with their church hinder them. They find it difficult to believe that we have the only true religion and that their form of worship is false. This becomes a major barrier to their spiritual progress. The brothers review the six factors mentioned on page 204 of the Reasoning book, which clearly show that other religions do not follow the Bible. Encourage the audience to use these points in tactfully helping sincere ones evaluate their religious beliefs.

Another way to say they’re being “tactful” is to say that they’re using “theocratic warfare”, a standard Jehovah’s Witness euphemism for “withholding the truth from those who do not deserve to know it”. We’ll leave a discussion of that to another essay.

---

---

Alan Feuerbacher

[Editor: Selected for inclusion from Feuerbacher’s writings, based on the Watchtower’s theory that 1919 was the date that God chose the Watchtower Society as his chosen representative, and that it fulfills the parable of the “faithful slave” in Matthew 24:45.]
Jehovah’s Witnesses often try to defend their religion against various charges by comparing themselves to the Israelites and then saying, “Well, the Israelites were God’s chosen people even though they made mistakes. And even though we make mistakes we are still God chosen people today.”

Well of course that simple argument simply doesn’t cut it. The Israelites, according to the Bible, came into existence as a result of a promise that God made to Abraham. God caused Abraham’s descendents to multiply profusely and grow into a populous nation. They existed because God said he would cause them to come into existence, and that he would make them his special people because of his promise to Abraham. Their being a chosen people had nothing to do with their conduct as individuals or as a nation — their relationship with God had little to do with them, and everything to do with God.

Eventually God made himself known to the Israelites as “Jehovah”, caused the Israelites to worship him, and gave them the Law. However, people outside of the Jewish nation could also worship Jehovah, as did Job and his friends. And as we know, God eventually abandoned the Israelites for their unfaithfulness, and formed “the Christian congregation”.

The Christian congregation was different in principle from the Israelite congregation. In the latter, people had no choice whether to belong; they were Jews by birth. On the other hand, people had to make a conscious decision about joining the Christian congregation. They became or remained Christians because of their conduct and their relationship with God and Christ. The Israelites remained Israelites no matter what bad things they did. But a Christian might no longer be a Christian for any number of reasons. In fact, the standards written by various New Testament writers were a litmus test for Christianity. Anyone violating certain standards of conduct was by definition not a Christian (of course, one can split hairs no end about the details, but we’re talking about gross violations of what virtually all professed Christians agree on). Anyone who repudiated the Christian faith was no longer a Christian, whereas a Jew who repudiated his religion remained a Jew.

Jesus instituted the Christian congregation, meaning the entire body of faithful Christians, and said that he would be “with” them until he returned. Assuming that that holds true today, the entire body of faithful Christians on earth would constitute the Christian congregation. Here is where JWs get into serious trouble.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that they and they alone are real Christians and therefore that “the entire body of faithful Christians on earth” is composed exclusively of JWs. Oh, a few individuals will allow that a few outside their organization might be true Christians, but that is not what the JW organization that “speaks” through the printing presses of its Watchtower Society teach. The leaders have stated quite explicitly that salvation for Christians cannot be obtained outside the JW organization, that it is in fact exclusively the “ark of salvation”. By such teachings, JWs condemn all other supposed Christians as fakes, imposters, as members of wicked “Christendom”. Therefore one should expect that JWs, both as individuals and as an organization, would be a cut above others who claim to be Christian and would always have been so. After all, no one becomes a Christian by birth, but by choice.

Jehovah’s Witnesses also teach that there were no real Christians on earth until the 1870s, when the Watchtower Society’s founder, Chares Taze Russell, began his Bible studies. They teach that Russell was the first modern-day member of “the anointed”, of the “faithful and discreet slave class”. However, this conflicts with another teaching that “one generation of the ‘slave’ class fed the next succeeding generation”. JWs have never explained this contradiction.

At any rate, JWs teach that somehow God brought them into existence in the 1870s as “the Bible Students” under the leadership of C. T. Russell. After Russell died and J. F. Rutherford became their leader, they teach that in 1919 Christ made an inspection of all of the Christian religions on the earth, found all of them except one — the Bible Students — wanting, and chose their leaders “to be over all Christ’s belongings.” Thus we find that JWs teach not only that their religion was instituted by God himself in the 1870s, and their leaders appointed as “the faithful slave”, but that Christ reaffirmed it and gave these leaders great spiritual authority over the entire body of Christians in the world in 1919.

What do Jehovah’s Witnesses actually base all this reasoning on, beyond their arguable interpretations of the Bible? Why, on their claim that they and they alone were so much better than all other Christian groups that Christ specially appointed their leaders in 1919 to have spiritual authority. In other words, they base these claims on their claims that their conduct was and remains a cut above that of everyone else, and that their teachings are virtually identical to those of the early Christians.

To sum it up, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that they are God’s chosen people today because of their conduct and their teachings, whereas the Israelites were God’s chosen by virtue of birth. The two situations cannot be compared.

This naturally leaves the Witnesses open to criticism. What if their claims of being such good Christians are not true? What if their leadership has proved itself unfaithful to God by, say, telling lies in God’s name? Would these disqualify them from being “God’s chosen”? Of course they would! The truth of the base claim of JW leaders to speak for God relies on whether they in fact speak for God. But since God doesn’t answer questions of this sort, people must observe JWs and judge for themselves whether they measure up. And that is what is happening on the H2O forum and anywhere else free discussion can be had.

On this forum and others it quickly becomes evident that many JW teachings, and their most fundamental one of all, cannot stand up to criticism. They have no means at all of proving that they are “God’s chosen”. The best they can do is compare themselves to the Israelites and whimper, “well, they were God’s chosen despite their faults, and so are we”. JWs as individuals have been so heavily indoctrinated with the fundamental teaching that they can do nothing else. Their faith in the Organization is based on mere claims, not demonstrable facts — and all JW know this. That’s why many of them become so angry when their basic doctrine is challenged.

Jehovah’s Witnesses could in principle prove their critics wrong by simply offering demonstrable proof of their claims. However, they will once again prove the critics right by failing to give substantive answers to the questions raised in this post. Any answers given will almost certainly contain much personal invective, consist largely of ad hominem attacks and unsupported assertions. Such answers will further prove my basic claim — JWs are not much different from any other Christian religion, but they are hypocrites because they claim to be so much better.

---