"Changes That Disturb People"
This was the title of an article appearing in the April 22, 1970 issue of the JW periodical, Awake! As is indicated by the title, changes can be disturbing. What sort of changes? Let?s let the article speak for itself:
"One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church?"
How wonderful to be a JW and not have to worry about having the theological rug rudely jerked out from under you. How sad for members of other churches who must deal with this.
"A businessman in Medellín, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many. "Tell me," he asked, "how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ?new things.? How do I know the ?new things? will be the truth in five years?" What are some of these changes that disturb people?
This Columbian businessman?s questions certainly demand answers. How CAN you know that the "New light" your church teaches today won?t be tomorrow?s "Old truth?" Again, it must be wonderful to be a JW.
The next article goes on to describe one of these shocking changes:
"For centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed. The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule? A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: "The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason." It adds: The "Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell."?Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938).
SHOCKING! Some Catholics regarded this as the "Law of Almighty God" and then it was changed! No wonder they were upset. What was the effect?
"The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. "All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat," explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. "Now I suddenly find out it isn?t a sin. That?s hard to understand." If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a "mortal sin" can suddenly be approved? If it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand. When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: "I don?t know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?" Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?"
More questions that demand answers. Truly it must be devastating to belong to a church which wields ex cathedra authority and then reverses itself later. It can be noted however, that meatless Fridays, while stupid and inconvenient, probably didn?t put anyone?s life in jeopardy. Of course, Jehovah?s Witnesses are not hypocritical in taking this superior and indignant tone. Nothing like this could take place within the hallowed grounds of spiritual paradise enjoyed by Jehovah?s people. Or could it?
In the August 1, 1961 issue of The Watchtower the following question appeared in the Questions from Readers column:
"Is there anything in the Bible against giving one?s eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some living person??L. C., United States."
Witness leaders and policy makers replied in part:
"The question of placing one?s body or parts of one?s body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one?s death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so."
A safe answer since the Bible, in truth, doesn?t address this question even obliquely. No more so than it addresses the question of whether meat should be eaten on Friday.
Slightly more than six years later however, virtually the same question appeared in the Questions from Readers column of the November 15, 1967 issue of The Watchtower:
"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??W. L., U.S.A."
This time, Witness leaders and policy makers replied:
"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.?Gen. 9:5, 6?.
??When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic."
Yesterday?s "matter of conscience" was now today?s "Law of Almighty God." Jehovah?s Witnesses who sincerely believed that the question of organ transplantation was up to them to decide now had to believe that it was cannibalism and a disrespect for human life in contravention of the scriptures.
Not quite thirteen years later, in the March 15, 1980 issue of The Watchtower, the question of organ transplantation again appeared in the Questions from Readers column:
Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
Why would this sort of question come up yet again? Surely Jehovah?s channel of communication on earth today would not reverse itself a second time on a serious matter of life and death:
"Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah?s Witnesses??.
?..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. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
Let?s look again at how the Witnesses ridiculed the meatless Friday business:
"This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God."
Indeed. However the same complete lack of Biblical instruction regarding organ transplantation didn?t seem to bother the Witness leaders and policy makers a bit.
"Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God?s Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support."
Of course those wicked Catholics can indulge in the luxury of questioning the competence of their church leadership when mistakes are made and doctrines must be reversed. Imagine what would happen to a Witness who said: "How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Jehovah?s Witnesses had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the Governing Body and our elders are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ?new things.? How do I know the ?new things? will be the truth in five years?" Such a one would quickly find themselves out on their ear.
It is only members of OTHER religions who can afford to be disturbed.
Tom
(With apologies to Norm Hovland)