We do not disfellowship someone who disapproves of the WTS

by onacruse 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    From the 1920 Watch Tower (A bit of a long read, but historically interesting, both in the reflection of what was going on early in the Rutherford era, and because it is such a contrast to how that era ended):

    w 4/1/20 99

    LET US DWELL IN PEACE

    "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." (Psalm 133:1)

    WAR between the beast and the Lamb is now on and the faithful followers of the Lamb of necessity are engaged in the conflict. One of the methods of warfare on the part of the adversary is to stir up strife in the ranks of the Lord’s followers. During the past three years the experiences have been quite fiery; but no Christian is surprised at this. "Beloved, be not surprised at the fire among you, occurring to you for a trial, as though some strange thing was befalling you." (1 Peter 4:12, Diag) Different brethren viewing questions with different minds have had some misunderstandings; and such were to be expected. We feel sure, however, that everyone possessing the spirit of the Lord, and whose chief purpose is to please the Lord and gain the prize of the high calling, is willing to forget the things that are behind, restate, agree upon and follow the divine rules laid down for the governing of the church, to dwell together in unity and proceed as one, harmonious body.

    It seems there never has been a time so important to the saints that they should dwell together in peace and unity. Loyalty is one of the divine requirements and loyalty to the Lord means to be loyal to the members of his body. Suspicion is an enemy. Suspicion leads to distrust; and distrust may lead to disloyalty. If the adversary can drive a wedge between the Lord’s people, causing strife, then to that extent the adversary succeeds in the conflict. The journey of the church is nearing a conclusion. Timely is the admonition to ‘look to ourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.’ (2 John 8)

    Some time ago brethren in Great Britain, having a desire to bring about a greater spirit of unity and cooperation, constituted a committee to discuss points of difference and addressed a letter to the President of the Society asking what could be done to this end. Letters were exchanged, and the committee reported to the Society’s President that his letter was very satisfactory and a request was made that it, or the substance of it, be published in THE WATCH TOWER. The same points are therefore restated here, for the benefit of our brethren in Great Britain and for the brethren throughout the world.

    The points of difference seem to be with reference to the relationship of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society to the various ecclesias and to the church as a body, the VDM questions, and "The Finished Mystery" as the seventh volume of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES. It has been claimed by some that these points are made conditions of fellowship. We first make a brief statement of the points and then deal with the matter more in detail.

    (1) Our understanding is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, as a body corporate, is the servant of the church and does not exercise control and authority over the Lord’s people.

    (2) The basis for fellowship and unity in the church is our relationship to God through Jesus Christ and our harmony with the divine arrangement.

    (3) There should be full liberty of conscience, with no attempt to coerce the views of one by another.

    (4) Church government should be maintained according to the word of the Master and the Apostles, and all should be willing to be governed by the majority. This principle applies to separate ecclesias and to the whole body of the church.

    (5) The Society provides Pilgrim service for the ecclesias that request it.

    (6) The Society has no authority to determine qualification of officers of the various ecclesias; but it has authority to determine the qualification of those who shall constitute its (the Society’s) officers or servants, and the sole authority to determine who shall constitute its officers and representatives.

    (7) The motive governing all actions in the church, or between the individual members, should be love.

    THE CHANNEL

    Some of the brethren have held that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the channel used by the Lord for dispensing or transmitting the message of present truth to the household of faith. Others have taken exception to this statement and have insisted that the Society is assuming a position that is un-Scriptural and contrary to the divine arrangement. We think the difference of opinion has been due entirely to a misunderstanding. Hence we here consider the question with a hope of clarifying it.

    A channel is properly defined as "that through which anything passes; means of passing, conveying or transmitting: as, The news was conveyed to us by different channels." (Webster) In other words, it is a vehicle or means of transmitting truth. The channel itself does not originate the truth, but it is merely used as a means to an end.

    w 4/1/20 100

    In order to understand the divine arrangement and whether or not the Lord, in the harvest period, has had a channel or vehicle for transmitting his message to the church, let us first determine the following questions:

    (1) Do we believe that Jesus Christ is present and has been for the past forty years, or more, directing the work of setting up his kingdom?

    (2) Do we believe that the Lord chose as an earthly representative to serve the household of faith one wise and faithful servant whom he made ruler over the household, and that the person so chosen was Charles Taze Russell?

    (3) Do we believe that the Lord directed Brother Russell during the time of his service in what he did with reference to carrying on his (the Lord’s) work?

    PURPOSE OF SOCIETY

    We assume that everyone in present truth, realizing that his knowledge of present truth came from the Lord through the ministration of his servant, will answer the foregoing questions in the affirmative; and answering them in the affirmative, we have a basis from which to consider the question as to whether or not the Society is the channel used by the Lord as above suggested.

    No one in present truth for a moment doubts that Brother Russell filled the office of the "faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season." (Matthew 24:45) He organized the Society shortly after he began his work, but not until 1884 was it incorporated. Without a doubt he saw there was a probability of the work being carried on after his change. While he was on earth he personally directed everything concerning the harvest work; but preparing for a future contingency, he wrote and published in THE WATCH TOWER in October, 1884:

    "...though it [the Society] has already done a great work, and in the hand of God has been a power in publishing the truth, the influence of which is being felt already on both sides of the Atlantic, [it] has never yet had legal incorporation. Nor was such incorporation considered necessary by its friends, it having already all the powers necessary for the present work and similar to that of nine-tenths of other small societies.

    "But a new phase of the question has arisen. It seems tolerably certain that some of the saints will be in the flesh during a great part at least of the ‘time of trouble,’ and if so, there will be need of printed matter, tracts, etc., as much then, perhaps, as now, and possibly will be more heeded, for when the judgments of the Lord are ‘in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.’ (Isaiah 26:9) Should those at present prominently identified with the work not be the last to be ‘changed’, some interruption of the work might result; but this may be obviated by having a legal standing, granted by a State Charter.

    "...it was deemed best to apply for a charter; and this has been done. We expect that it will be granted without delay."

    On December 13, 1884, the charter was granted, a notice of which was published in THE WATCH TOWER for January, 1885.

    It is manifest from the language used by Brother Russell that he expected the Society to constitute his successor to carry on the work after he had finished that which was committed to him personally.

    "THAT SERVANT"

    In the October 1, 1909, issue of THE WATCH TOWER he published an article dealing with "that servant," and among other things there said:

    "Our opponents are ready to admit that the Lord has used the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as his channel or servant in forwarding the harvest message in a most remarkable degree-in a manner and to an extent hardly to be believed and never equaled-in many tongues and at the hands of many ‘fellow-servants’, Colporteurs, Pilgrims, Volunteers, etc. They admit that there is no question that a remarkable service has been rendered, and hence that it is indisputable by any who believe that there is a harvest work in progress and that the Society has been a servant of the harvest message in a most profound and peculiar sense, even if they dispute that it has fulfilled Matthew 24:45, as being ‘that servant.’"

    He furthermore stated in that same article (page 293)

    "Our friends reply that it is with the Lord and with no one else to determine who and when and what shall be provided for the ‘household of faith’: and for him equally to decide whether he will send that spiritual food through one channel or through many channels. They urge that all who are hungering and thirsting after truth, all who are looking to the Lord for their supply, all who are in proper attitude of mind, meek and teachable, will be ready to say, ‘Lord, thy will be done in thy way! To thee we are indebted for every blessing, every mercy, every ray of light, and we prefer to receive it as thou dost prefer to dispense it! We have no wish or will to express! Our prayer is, Thy will be done!’ They further urge that the opponents consider that the harvest message has been going forth for thirty-five years, and that if the Lord should change his program and his channel of sending the truth at this late day, it would be very remarkable-less reasonable to suppose than that he would continue to use ‘that servant.’ They urge, furthermore, that all who cut loose from the Society and its work, instead of prospering themselves or upbuilding others in the faith and in the graces of the spirit, seemingly do the reverse-attempt injury to the cause they once served, and, with more or less noise, gradually sink into oblivion, harming only themselves and others possessed of a similarly contentious spirit."

    ORDER OF GOD

    Order is a divine arrangement. (1 Corinthians 14:40) Do we believe that there is any work for the saints to do after the change of Brother Russell? To this question doubtless all the saints will answer in the affirmative. Then would it not logically follow that the Lord would carry on his work in an orderly manner? If he had ever constituted the Society a channel, servant, vehicle, or means of transmitting the truth, is there any reason, Scriptural or otherwise, to conclude that he has adopted and organized a separate or different channel; and if so, what is it? The mere fact that he would continue to use The Society as his channel would not mean that others not in harmony with the Society have no truth. They may have much truth. The whole question is, Are all those in the truth working together in harmony? We would have no quarrel with anyone who wants to seek truth through other channels. We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord’s channel. Appropriate to this point, Brother Russell wrote and published (ZION’S WATCH TOWER 1909, page 293):

    "From the first we have urged that this subject be not allowed to produce contention or bitterness of spirit. Let

    w 4/1/20 101

    each reach his own conclusions and act accordingly. If some think that they can get as good or better provender at other tables, or that they can produce as good or better themselves-let these take their course. All who feel dissatisfied with the spiritual food which our great Master has privileged us to send broadcast to every nation should certainly be looking anywhere and everywhere for something better. Our wish for them is that they might find something better. If we were dissatisfied ourselves, or if we knew whore something better could be obtained, we certainly at any cost would seek it."

    SOME QUESTIONS ASKED

    Brother Russell finished his work in 1916. According to the order provided, an election was held in January, 1917, and officers of the Society elected. In October, 1917, a referendum vote was taken of the entire church for the purpose of determining who should constitute the servants or officers of the Society for the ensuing year. On January 5, 1918, the shareholders, duly constituted to cast the legal vote, convened, and in harmony with and in obedience to the referendum vote elected officers and servants of the Society. Opposition candidates were nominated and before the vote was taken three questions were asked each one thus nominated, and they were required to answer publicly before the shareholders voted. These questions were:

    (1) Are you in harmony with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and its work, as provided by its charter and Brother Russell’s will?

    (2} Have you answered the VDM questions?

    (3) Do you accept "The Finished Mystery" as the seventh volume of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, as published by the Society?

    The shareholders had a right to know whether or not the officers or servants whom they were about to elect would carry out their wishes, and therefore with propriety propounded the above questions. Almost unanimously the vote was cast for the officers elected, who answered these questions in the affirmative. The Society, in regular session, by an overwhelming majority vote, expressed its will in substance thus: Brother Russell filled the office of "that servant" and has finished his work. While here, acting under the supervision of the Lord, he organized the Society and left it as his successor to continue the work yet to be done, and that its officers, to be elected, will be its duly constituted representatives and must be in harmony with the expressed will of the Society and so state before they are placed in that responsible position.

    Such action was taken, that the work might be done "decently and in order"; and was therefore entirely proper and Scriptural. In other phrase, the overwhelming majority said: We believe the Society thus constituted by Brother Russell under the supervision of the Lord has a commission from the Lord, which commission or authority the Lord has never taken away from it, and it therefore has a work to do; and the duty and obligation devolves upon it to do that work and to do it "decently and in order."

    A small minority who love the Lord might hold a different view, but the majority would not feel disposed to elect its officers and servants from such, because there could not be harmonious action. If some did not care to work in harmony with the Society thus constituted, that would be their privilege; yet that would not mean that there should be any ill feeling, nor that such should be disfellowshipped. If the Lord started a work through a duly constituted organization or society, and that work increased and upon it the Lord’s blessing was made manifest, then it would seem that those who wanted to be in harmony with the Lord would wish to cooperate in his arrangement. If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience.

    Applying the same rule to the several ecclesias composing the entire body, suppose one ecclesia is composed of a hundred persons, sixty of whom say, We are not in harmony with the Society and its work; therefore we will elect as our elders and servants those from among the majority who hold our views. Certainly no fair-minded person would deny that they had the privilege thus to do. If they felt that the Lord would be better pleased with them and their action to follow that course, then it is their privilege to take it. On the other hand, suppose that sixty or even a larger majority said, We are in full harmony with the Society and the work it is trying to do. We believe that it has a commission from the Lord and that it is in accordance with his will that we should work harmoniously in the proclamation his message; therefore we will elect as our elders and servants only those who hold similar views and who will work in harmony with us. Would not that privilege be theirs? Surely no one can deny that fact, But what about the minority? Should they be disfellowshipped? Certainly not. They should be treated kindly, treated as brethren, in harmony with the Scriptural admonition that we should do good unto all, especially unto those of the household of faith. Should they be greeted as brethren? To be sure. Why should anyone be treated unkindly because he could not see just as we see? Let each one exercise the spirit of love, the spirit of Christ, toward the brethren, because "if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his."

    PILGRIM SERVICE

    Will the Society provide Pilgrim service to classes which have not elected elders in full harmony and sympathy with the Society and its work? Yes, if the class requests such service and will give respectful hearing to the Pilgrims who are sent. Such action will be taken on the theory that it is the desire to help any one, specially those who show the spirit of the Master. The Society, through its duly constituted officers, will determine when and when not it would be in harmony with the Lord’s will to provide such service.

    Has the Society the authority to direct various ecclesias to propound to those who stand for once the question: "Are you in harmony with the Society and its work?" No, certainly not, because the Society does not elect such elders or servants. Has the local ecclesia the right to propound such questions? Yes, indeed, the local ecclesia chooses its servants and teachers.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Interesting Craig,

    But not surprising vis a vis all we've discussed about that subject in the past.

    Now, fast forward to 1938 and let us know what "I'm talkin' about!" and what da Judge was REALLY talkin' about!

    Farkel

  • Scully
    Scully

    "full liberty of conscience" = the WTS will tell you how your conscience should decide on a given matter

    Mind you, playing the Conscience™ trump card in discussions with a JW is like holding a garland of garlic in front of a vampire. It renders them powerless.

  • glenster
    glenster

    The overview I have so far is that Russell or Rutherford (early on) might use immodest or modest language--modest as with Russell fudging just prior to 1914 (not when WWI started and he pretended he predicted something), or by making a general statement of fallibilty about predictions but insisting a particular prediction was solid. And the organization wasn't as regimented early on. But from the early days of Russell, the leader claimed that only he and his followers were of a literal 144,000 that were going to heaven, and condemned those outside the exclusive little group, which is playing prophet. Since the leaders played prophet badly from the start, the leniency only seems to refer to a narrow range of those in or near the marketing interests of the leader of the group.

  • looking_glass
    looking_glass

    But I think they still claims this at least as of 15 years ago that was the case - here is the reason I say this:

    Around 15 years ago I was engaged to a jw. I knew he had his doubts about stuff, but he kept them quiet until one day something happened, he snapped and at the hall he started saying stuff to the elders after a particular talk. They dragged him in the back and later had a JC to discuss his "concerns". Within a week he was DA'd, not DF'd. When I questioned the elders about this, they told me that he expressed his disbelief in certain things and thus he showed that HE did not want to be a JW anymore. When I specifically asked if he was DF'd because of questioning the WTBTS they said "NO". That HE DA'd himself. When I spoke w/ him, he said he never told them that he wanted to be DA'd, they told him by what he was saying that he was DA'ing himself.

    To me speaking w/ the elders was like speaking w/ the forked tongued one! They create their own truth. Amazing how that works for them.

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    Farkel:

    Now, fast forward to 1938 and let us know what "I'm talkin' about!" and what da Judge was REALLY talkin' about!

    Hey, I'm workin' on it! LOL Actually, I thought it might be instructive to follow the evolution of this policy, with a whistle-stop during the post-1925 period, when this 'autonomy' principle really came to bite the WTS in the butt.

    glenster, welcome to JWD. One interesting aspect of the idiosyncrasies of Russell is that there was, as you mention, a resultant general allowance of the same type of idiosyncrasy in the individual ecclesias. That didn't come to a full halt until the late 30s.

    looking_glass, that is one of the reasons that the WTS changed the status of DAing (early 80s, as I recall). Even until then, a person could DA and be treated in more or less the same way as described in that 1920 WT. But, with the development of a huge post-1975 group of disillusioned JWs, this presented more and more of a problem for the WTS, and then they recategorized DAing to be essentially the same as being DFd. Ray Franz's defection only added more fuel to that fire.

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Dear Onacruise,

    THANK YOU!!!!! I very much appreciate this article!!! I plan on sharing it with a a few family members!!!!!

    Sincerely,

    Lady Liberty

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Dear Glenster,

    WELCOME to the forum!!

    Sincerely,

    Lady Liberty

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Hello everyone,

    Does anyone know where I can get a scanned copy of this article Onacruise posted?

    w 4/1/20 99

    LET US DWELL IN PEACE

    Thank you in advance,

    Lady Liberty

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Craig, for this and other gifts we give you thanks. Amen.

    Let's see... 1920; Russell had already died. Did the writer forget about the schism that took place over Russell's wavering over the issue of THE COVENANT? Henninges and McPhail were the "big" names that left, along with a goodly portion of the nameless rand-and file at the time.

    It would only be a few years after these lofty ideals were impressed upon the printed page that "big names" Robison and Sturgeon would leave, having accepted the doctrine of Universalism.

    There have been plenty of defectors from the official WATCHTOWER dogma, and not one received the brotherly treatment that the WATCHTOWER espouses. So it continues today; e-Watchman is a modern version of the late great Roy Goodrich and others.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit