Why did the WT print this? (LOL, I agree that they will regret it sooner than later)
1. Like VM44 said, they can now just refer to the article.
The anonymous author of the article tries to cover all bases, but you can't have it both ways!
Actually, they do this on purpose, I believe.
This is a continuation of a pattern started by the WT in the late 90's. An article perceived to be authoritative will have sections that can be later quoted FROM BOTHS SIDES OF AN ISSUE.
First, consider this answer from a QFR dated 6/15/1999 regarding voting:
"As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah's Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible trained conscience and an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State."
Clear? CONSCIENCE matter.
"Whatever personal decisions Jehovah's Witnesses make in the face of different situations, they take care to preserve their Christian neutrality and freeness of speech.
It then lists 5 things to consider about voting: you are responsible for the actions of the person you voted for, you are no part of the world, you are expected to be neutral as (friends of) ambassadors of Christ, 'Christians' value their unity and politics encourages disunity, and keeping out of politics gives us freeness of speech to tak about the kingdom.
The implication is that if you vote, you might be responsible for those killed in war, you are now part of the world, you aren't neutral, you aren't an ambassador of Jesus, you are not unified with the congregation and you have no freeness of speech.
This article will hit the note familiar to most JW's: neutral means you don't vote. No witness I know would ever enter a voting booth out of peer pressure only later to state he did not pull the lever. If Malawi witnesses died for neutrality, the idea of being pressured into a fake vote is repulsive to every witness I know. They would resist this to the end.
But this article can be referenced by outside sources in support of the 'reasonableness' of the WT position, OR later by the WT themselves after they have changed (and they will change) their stance on voting.
OR this QFR on working in churches:
This QFR dating to 4/15/1999 will hit the note familiar to many witnesses: you don't have ANYTHING to do with Babylon the Great:
"Revelation 18:4 sets out the command: "Get out of her my people if you do not want to share with her in her sins". A person would be sharing in the works and sins of Babylon the Great if he was a regular employee of a religion that was teaching false worship."
It goes on to say no matter what the work: accountant, janitor, whatever; you are sharing if you are a direct employee.
BUT it then poses the matter of contract work: it lists 5 questions to consider to see if it would be 'wrong', including is the work itself scripturally objectionable, does the person have authority over his own work tasks (for some reason, the WT here considers that an employee can't refuse to do something, a position they eschew most of the time), to what degree is the person involved, what is the source of the pay, and what is the effect of doing the work, will it stumble one's own conscience or others. (What if you are a janitor that works for a contractor that has a contract with the church for regular maintenance? HMM??)
So: directly employed--NO. Contract work: maybe, with a truly pharisaic (apologies to the pharisees) list of qualifiers.
This is another article the WT can mine for quotes later when they change (and they will change) their position completely about contract work for churches.
(Personal note: I had a business when this came out, and we were asked to bid on churches. I bid on them; one of my employees objected, based on this article. I said I had read the article, and found no reason not to bid on the one time work. She based her objection on the same article, then told me that the article told her that if I told her to work on them she had to, and it was OK for her to do so. I replied, look: it is either right or wrong; it can't be right or wrong based on whether I tell you to or not, and if that was the standard, then it must not be wrong at all. She must have complained to her elders, who talked to my elders. When they brought it up to me without any warning, I said I was not prepared to talk about it at the time. I asked them about the meeting 3 times after that; one elder finally shrugged his shoulders and said, "it is conscience matter anyway, don't worry about it." !!!)
So I think those 2 public articles about 607 fill 2 purposes: to make the position seem reasonable to outsiders (this is where it will backfire; outsiders will have no qualms about actually researching the authors and will find them to be misquoted) and to mine for quotes when they change (and they will change) their doctrine about 607.