On the Governing Body -- Then and Now

by sd-7 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • sd-7
    sd-7

    January 1, 1929 Watchtower:

    "No one knew more about the church than its great teacher Paul. It may be said that no man ever exercised so much authority in the church as he. But there is no evidence to show that he ever sought a unity of organization which would bring all the little companies founded by him under one control, nor that he himself claimed to have any authority amongst them, save that which his special endowments by the Lord through the holy spirit gave to him. He had authority to teach and he had authority to deal with those who were harmful to the church. But his authority was limited by the measure of agreement to that which he might say or do.

    "He wrote to the Corinthian church saying he would set some things in order when he came amongst them, a word which tells of authority. But he also wrote saying he would go to them, not as having dominion over their faith, but as helper of their joy. (1 Cor. 11:34; 2 Cor. 1:24) There is nothing in his writings to show that Paul would go to Corinth or to any other church as having the right of entry and authority to determine any or all matters relative to doctrine or conduct...

    "Nor did the apostles ever sit in council to set laws over the churches. They had no authority to do so, and they never presumed. Nor after the death of Paul did Timothy and Titus exercise authority save as in a measure they continued the work of Paul as a helper of the brethren. The early church knew nothing of bishoprics in the sense in which that word is used to authorize the great offices of the churches."

    *** jv chap. 10 pp. 143-146 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
    In the first century, when questions as to doctrine or procedure arose, these were referred to a central governing body made up of spiritually older men. Decisions were made after considering what the inspired Scriptures said as well as evidence of activity that was in harmony with those Scriptures and that was prospering as a result of the operation of the holy spirit. The decisions were conveyed in writing to the congregations. (Acts 15:1-16:5) That same procedure is in operation among Jehovah's Witnesses today.

    ...Tell me, is this why the Bill of Rights includes the 5th Amendment?

    --sd-7

  • agonus
    agonus

    Evidently

  • jamiebowers
    jamiebowers
    Evidently

    LOL, Agonus!

  • kurtbethel
    kurtbethel

    OUCH! Busted!!

  • pirata
    pirata

    sd-7, have you read "In Search of Christian Freedom"? I am currently reading it and really enjoying it. It has multiple chapters devoted to the development of the idea of a central Governing Body in the organization. Ray also relates it to the development of the papacy in the "great apostasy".

    Thanks for the geat quotes!

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    Paul was really a traveling pastor. A pastor is like a dad over an extended family. I was a Foursquare pastor for several years. The only people who ever REALLY believe they can carry this off have obviously never had several kids. :-))

    OH, and the GB have very few or none kids!!!!

    SURPRISE!!

    Randy

  • Terry
    Terry

    To be an Organization you have to be organized.

    To Govern as a Body you must be a body.

    Christianity IS the body. The body can't have its OWN body.

    Christ is the HEAD of the body. The HEAD doesn't need competition with the asshole.

    JW's are like the asshole trying to run the body while claiming it receives direction from the head!

  • sd-7
    sd-7
    sd-7, have you read "In Search of Christian Freedom"? I am currently reading it and really enjoying it. It has multiple chapters devoted to the development of the idea of a central Governing Body in the organization. Ray also relates it to the development of the papacy in the "great apostasy".

    As a matter of fact I have read that one. Not sure if I read every single page, but certainly the vast majority of it. From that I gathered that the Governing Body existed in name only until they wrested control from Fred Franz in the mid-70s. Still, as a kid in the '90s I can remember still thinking of the President of the Watchtower Society as having a special phone line to the heavens. I don't think it was until they handed the title of President over to a bunch of no-names that it losts its relevance for me personally.

    Dogpath--(Wow, you commented on my post! You're a legend!)But the fact that the GB members generally don't have kids does not surprise me. They strike me as out of touch with reality, and it comes through the literature that they are. Certainly the circuit overseers struck me as that way, and I figured they had to have learned it from somewhere.

    Terry--very true. It doesn't make sense to call Jesus the Head if he's not actually making any decisions on earth except via this vain attempt at a proxy. I'd argue that the GB would moreso claim to be the neck if anything, if it was up to them.

    Glad to see some comments on this one, I was doing a major research project and happened to encounter this quote by pure accident.

    -sd-7

  • Terry
    Terry

    Terry--very true. It doesn't make sense to call Jesus the Head if he's not actually making any decisions on earth except via this vain attempt at a proxy. I'd argue that the GB would moreso claim to be the neck if anything, if it was up to them.

    I don't think enough is made of the embarrassing fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have a very weak and ineffectual Jesus ALREADY ON THE THRONE doing absolutely NOTHING for about 97 years now!

    This should be brought up over and over again by Ex-JW's so that active JW's will stop and consider his impotency!

  • sd-7
    sd-7

    I was thinking about this thread, in light of the somewhat recent change to the 'faithful slave' doctrine. It seems particularly poignant to remember that 10 years after said 'slave' was allegedly appointed, the above ^^^ January 1929 Watchtower article was written and published, basically denying the slave's authority in spectacularly 'apostate' fashion. So when they talk about 1919 or any of the early 20th century history, clearly they don't want to include certain unfortunate details such as this article.

    --sd-7

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit