Please read the following brief paragraph carefully:

"Once again, the ruling ecclesiastical class suppressed efforts to make God’s Word available to their flock. They violently silenced a voice that pointed to some of the errors of their non-Biblical beliefs. They proved to be among the worst enemies of religious freedom and truth. Sadly, this is a stance that in various ways survives even to our day."

Know where it’s from? The Watchtower, February 15, 2000, pp. 26-29. It’s the conclusion to the article on Cyril Lucaris, "A Man Who Valued the Bible." Lucaris was the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the Orthodox Church in the 17th century, who was deeply concerned about deplorable spiritual conditions. He was ultimately strangled for his attempts "to enlighten and uplift the educational level of his clergy and flock."

The second article of his "Confession" declares that the Scriptures are inspired by God and that their authority exceeds that of the church. In other articles he maintained Christ is the sole Mediator and Head of the congregation.

After his death a synod declared his thoughts heresy, declaring that the Scriptures "should be read, not by just anyone, but only by the ones peering into the deep things of the spirit after having done appropriate research"!

Reflect on the quality of thought which authored that powerful paragraph quoted above. Is there a take-home message?

Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, who is the ecclesiastical class today? Who are the final authority in telling you what the Scriptures actually mean? Who would almost literally strangle someone who disagrees with their infallibility?

Acccording to the Watchtower, "Lucaris made commendable efforts to have the Bible be the authority on church doctrine and to educate people about its teachings." They note his dream was not realized of seeing the Church return to "evangelical simplicity."

Theologian Raymond Brown could have written a book about the word, but chose another’s simple definition: ‘Evangelism? That’s one beggar telling another where the food is.’

Ironic that those who need to learn the lesson of Lucaris will heed it least.

Should you care to revisit the article, think of the battered men whom you know outside—and still inside—who want the Word to be the final authority.

Is anyone else struck by the clarity of this article and its powerful message?

Maximus

For CQ and others who have fought the good fight

.

Maximus: Excellent points, and well applied. It does make us wonder if the Society is having some kind of internal political and policy war, such that they could write this kind of material, and at the same time be its greatest enemy. Thanks again. - Amazing

When I began studying with the Witness, I happened upon a very well done movie relating the life and times of Jan Hus, a man who suffered much the same fate, for the same reasons, as Cyril Lucaris. Sadly, Hus failed to realize (until it was too late) the nature of the beast confronting him; in the form of the council that sentenced him to death for heresy. From what I’ve read, Lucaris also failed to ascertain the true nature of those religious authorities that confronted him as well. Both men were deluded in that they believed that “truth” was of some real concern to the “ruling ecclesiastical class” of their time, and that the examination of biblical precedents would result in doctrinal and procedural modifications by the hierarchy.

It seems obvious, in historical retrospect, that power and the maintenance of the prevailing status quo was the only interest of the religious authorities of those days. Committing murder in the “greater interest” of preserving the mother church was much preferred to acknowledging error and dealing with the consequences.

Would things really be much different today? Is there a lesson that all can learn from the experiences of these men, and those like them?

What really upsets me is the way the Society will arrogate, indirectly, the membership of others held in high moral esteem, such as Lucaris - men such as Hus, Wycliff, Luther, etc. They do this by conferring, posthumously, the title of "anointed" upon them and thereby creating a nonexistent link between themselves and others whose credibility they covet. What a game, hey?

The degree of hypocrisy evident in the WT article you mentioned is mind boggling. How can they do it?

It has been known for years among different insider circles that there are two factions in the tower. One is the militant hardliner service department boys that are responsible for the hard-line articles in the Watchtower and one of moderates that write in the Awake.

There is no question that the tower is in dissonance, much like a psychotic mother that speaks out of both ends of her mouth giving mixed messages. Out of one end she delivers love and tenderness and out of the other punitive harsh judgments. This type of phenomena creates children who are twisted. Does this help explain in part why JWs are twisted? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm????

Victor Escalante

It's interesting that the society always berated the Catholic church for not allowing its members to read the Bible. The society allows JWs to read the Bible as much as they want but doesn't allow them to reach any conclusions other than those approved by the society. What good does it do to be able to read the Bible under such circumstances. At least the Catholic church was honest. "Don't read the Bible", they said, "because you can't understand it." The WTS society has created an illusion of independant study. "Here are the conclusions you are going to reach, now read this", summarizes their approach. There is no difference in the end.

Among responsible ones, a large concern some decades back was the clear need for the individual to be so educated that his/her own Christian conscience would guide, especially in those issues which the Bible writers saw no necessity to spell out. Turned out to be a challenge, to the GB. We know what happened to thoughtful Christian men like Ed Dunlap who valued the Bible over dogma.

In effect they too were put on a boat and shipped out as if for banishment, as was Lucaris. Yes, they were strangled. As The Watchtower says, "a sobering reminder of what happens when clergy-instigated intrigues stand in the way of freedom of thought and expression." Is there any wonder why the drop in publishers? Lack of zeal? Please!

A hierarchy has enmeshed itself inextricably in Talmudic dogma. Policy after policy, legalism after legalism. Can you imagine Paul or Peter ever condoning this kind of activity?

<One is the militant hardliner service department boys that are responsible for the hard-line articles in the Watchtower and one of moderates that write in the Awake.>

This statement is too simplistic and it is inaccurate. The author may not have been talking to insiders who know, or perhaps they have misinterpreted, or are speaking in generalities. Service has been highly influential organizationally but is not responsible for writing the Watchtower, although clearly Writing took a huge swipe at that department with this article. BTW With the changes in Service and the institution of the Branch committee, isn't Writing now handling Our Kingdom Ministry, previously the organ of Service?

Watch, elders, for letters that come your way from the new "Society," the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, with the signature Legal and Service Departments. That has implications which are very clear to those reading the tea leaves.

Look again at the 10/15/00 QFR with its picture of the couple reviewing the Bible over coffee, with "Questions To Ask Yourself." "Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if ...?" What scriptures are they reviewing? It's an inconsistent policy that NO ONE can really explain in Brooklyn.

Who wants to be viewed as "weak" in conscience? The average publisher thinks that there is only one answer to the questions posed in the box. At some future time, having given itself wiggle room, the Society will say, "We told you that you had a choice." They're hoping that a miraculous appearance of blood substitutes will bale them out in a few years.

The flock, however, are truly uneducated. Can they really go beyond three words? Most blur health issues with Scriptural issues over blood, and close their eyes to what no other readers of the Bible have concluded, saying: "What part of 'abstain from blood' don't you understand."

A dumbed-down TM School is the answer?

Better to read the Watchtower's comment in that QFR: "The Life-Giver urges all to trust in Jesus' shed blood."

How inconsistent can you get?

A friend of a Friend shared this with me: "By its deplorable action the Society has demonstrated that it is less concerned with the real and day-to-day interests of helpless and innocent children than it is with its own instrumentational viability. The internal strife and anger on this issue runs deep and it is heating up! The Society should have listened to its battery of lawyers years ago when they advised a uniform policy of reporting child abuse when protection and justice is reasonable expected.

"Why did the Society want its correspondence held in such strict confidence? Because they betray the Society’s self-interest gained at the expense of children and their families! In the end their interests will suffer over this and other issues.

"Just how deep the Society will yet mire itself in this sordid affair is yet to be seen, but what lies ahead will become even more untenable and nasty unless some major change is enacted by decision-makers at Brooklyn Bethel on a number of key issues into compliance with that which is sound and moral based upon the Bible, most importantly in those issues involving blood and child abuse."

Amen.

Wasn't correcting you as much as taking the opportunity to clarify, Victor. I'm happy someone understands "the Society" is not a monolith, as some of us have been banging away at.

The GB Service Committee featured one really tough, hardliner in the person of Ted Jaracz. Remains to be seen how boxed in he is. Really missed is the intelligence of Lloyd Barry, who could effective keep TJ in check.

To finger good guys would be the kiss of death, of course.

Thanks so much for that juvenile insight Rex.

What I'll keep in mind is that you're a troll.

Evangel-a-troll.

Dearest Maximillian...

That is indeed why my Lord said, 'Beware the leaven... of the Pharisees... which is hypocrisy.'

Talk about pointing a 'crooked' finger. How about the words in the last and first paragraphs of pages 69-70 of the Proclaimer's Book. How does 'dem apples' grab ya?

Woe to the scribes... and Pharisees...

A slave of Christ,

SJ

From page 69/70 of the Proclaimers Book. Thanks for pointing this out Shelby.

wasasister, wondering where she put her hip-waders