The Faithful and Discreet Navigators blow of course....WHY?

by Terry 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry
    Terry

    Choose your Navigator very carefully

    The ancient world was explored through the genius of navigation using an understanding of geometry, trigonometry and the position of the stars. Until the invention of the compass and cartography, a week of overcast skies could prove disastrous for a ship on the open seas.

    The navigator, skilled though he may be, needed to know at least two things to reach his destination. First, he needed to know where he was and secondly where he wanted to end up. Only then could the actual art and science of navigation commence.

    If we consult a dictionary we find the following:

    nav·i·gate

    1. To plan, record, and control the course and position of a ship.

    2. To follow a planned course on, across, or through: navigate a stream.

    In the total absence of a view to the stars or sight of land only one method obtained whereby a rough guess could be made. This was called Dead Reckoning.

    dead reckoning

    n.

    1. A method of estimating the position of a ship without astronomical observations, as by applying to a previously determined position the course and distance traveled since.

    The worst case scenario for a journey of any magnitude would be for the traveler to think he knew his certain position only to discover he was lost at sea!

    Only a fool would pretend confidence without knowing his actual position. That status would be the deadliest disconfirmation of aptitude in the history of navigation! The very essence of the job of Navigator is to control the course and the position toward a definite destination.

    It is baffling and troubling and a great cause for loss of confidence in a Captain, a Navigator, or a Guide should they turn to those who entrust them with their very lives and report they were only human and everybody makes mistakes!

    Like, for instance, this:

    WT 1981 12/1

    SUBJECTION TO THE “SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES”

    12 Arriving at a proper understanding of Romans 13:1-7 furnishes yet another instance of “navigating” toward the correct viewpoint. The early Bible Students rightly understood that the “higher powers,” or “superior authorities,” were the governmental rulers of this world...

    On the basis of that understanding they concluded that if a Christian were drafted in time of war he would have to serve in the army, don a uniform and go off to battle. But it was allowed that, when it came to actually killing a fellowman, he could shoot in the air instead.

    13 However, it was quite apparent that the apostle Paul could not be advocating such a course.

    The question arose: Could the “higher powers,” then, refer to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ?

    For a time, God’s people held to this viewpoint. And during the troublous years of World War II this at least fortified them in ‘obeying God as ruler rather than men,’ as they built up a marvelous record of fearless Christian neutrality throughout the earth. (Acts 5:28, 29) There has never been any question that Christians must give their primary allegiance to the Sovereign Lord Jehovah and his Messianic king, Jesus Christ. But are these at the same time the “superior authorities” to whom we must ‘render tax, tribute and honor’?—Rom. 13:7.

    14 Happily, in the year 1962, Jehovah led his people to an understanding of the principle of relative subjection. It was seen that dedicated Christians must obey secular rulers as the “superior authorities,” gladly recognizing these as “God’s minister,” or servant, for their good. (Rom. 13:4) However, if these “authorities” ask them to violate God’s laws, what then? Up to that point Christians have obeyed the command at Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities.” But this is qualified by Jesus’ words, as recorded at Matthew 22:21: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” So whenever “Caesar” asks Christians to do things contrary to God’s will, they must place Jehovah’s law ahead of “Caesar’s.” This is contrary to what is practiced in Christendom in general. Many so-called Christians scruple little about violating God’s laws when commanded to do so by Caesar. One patriot even expressed it this way: “Our country! . . . may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.” But not so the Christian witnesses of Jehovah! When commanded to go contrary to God’s will, they echo the words of Jesus’ apostles, saying: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.

    Let’s see if we have this straight!

    The Watchtower leaders had it right at first , then had it wrong—but, that’s okay because they finally got it right again and then, they got to invent something called “relative subjection.”

    What is relative subjection?
    Here, let Jesus explain it
    Matthew 6:24

    King James Version (KJV)

    24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

    That sounds “relative”? How is that relative?

    But, let’s allow the Governing Body to explain it clearly for themselves.

    WT 1981 12/1 pg. 28 paragraph 9.

    "Such adjustments might be said to follow a principle that has been said to govern the progress of scientific truth.

    In brief, it works something like this: At first there is a proposition made that is subject to argumentation.

    It holds out great possibilities for enlightenment or practical application. But then in time it is seen to have certain flaws or weaknesses.

    So the tendency is to go to a proposition at the opposite extreme. Later it is found that that position does not represent the whole truth either, and so there is a combining of the valid points in both positions.

    Time and again this principle has applied in the way Proverbs 4:18 has been fulfilled."

    I think I missed where they told us who said it or named the principle thus described!

    Maybe this is it?

    However, it may have seemed to some as though that path has not always gone straight forward. At times explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view . But this has not actually been the case. This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as ‘tacking.’ By maneuvering the sails the sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and forth, but all the time making progress toward their destination in spite of contrary winds. – The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, page 27-28.

    When the phrase “toward their destination” pops up it sounds like they knew where they were going but the wind blew them off course for a bit. What was this “wind” and how did they get blown off course?

    nav·i·gate

    1. To plan, record, and control the course and position of a ship.

    2. To follow a planned course on, across, or through: navigate a stream.

    Let’s go back to the Watchtower article to the point where they “went off course.”

    ___________________________

    13 However, it was quite apparent that the apostle Paul could not be advocating such a course.

    The question arose: Could the “higher powers,” then, refer to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ?

    For a time, God’s people held to this viewpoint.

    There it is! See where it tells us “It was quite apparent”?

    That led to inward questionings: The question arose: Could the “higher powers,” then, refer to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ?

    Are we now correct in saying that these authorities are the kings, presidents, prime ministers, mayors, magistrates, and others who wield secular, political power in the world and that we owe them subjection in a relative way? Irenaeus…viewed the superior authorities as “actual human authorities.” The context of Paul’s words shows that Irenaeus was correct . – The Watchtower, November 1, 1990, page 11.

    Finally! It is the CONTEXT of Paul’s words that the Watchtower Society IGNORED which blew them off course even though the early Christian Father, Irenaeus had it correct in 202 c.e.

    Since the progressive light of Truth grows brighter and brighter how did this “lost at sea” scenario ever happen in the first place?

    “When God’s witnesses perceived that Jehovah and Christ Jesus were the true “higher powers” to whom Christians must be subject, another heavy and grievous weight was lifted from the shoulders of his people. (Rom 13:1) No longer did corrupt politicians wrongly occupy that position in the minds of God’s servants…” – The Watchtower, January 1, 1951, page 21.

    From 1929 to 1962 the Watchtower’s own Navigator “perceived” the wrong course. This was published, taught in their books and magazines and bible studies. It was used as a legal defense before Draft Boards and Courts as just cause for conscientious objectors prosecuted for military avoidance.

    When Jehovah’s Witnesses taught and believed this they told each other this was “accurate knowledge” and was The Truth. False religions in Christendom did not teach what Witnesses taught. Why? Because false Christians were blinded by Satan while JW’s had the faithful and discreet slave to guide them through the rough seas to their destination!

    Except, by their own admission, they were off course ALL THOSE YEARS (1929-1962) and what Christendom had been teaching about Romans 13:1 had been correct!

    The faithful and discreet slave is charged with the duty of giving “meat in due season.”

    What then were Jehovah’s people actually feeding on from 1929 to 1962 and why had they

    been allowed to go off course?

    In 1929 the moment they went off course and were blown astray it was called NEW LIGHT!

    Luke 11:35

    New International Version (NIV)

    35 See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness.

  • JakeM2012
    JakeM2012

    Terry, I appreciate your highlighting this particular navigational error of the WTBTS.

    My Mom said that she had a "Bible Student" in 1962 and had explained to the student this scripture with the then current understanding that the Higher Powers were Jehovah and Jesus, as you pointed out that JW's believed from 1929-1962. The person with whom my mother was studying confidently disagreed with her explanation, however, Mom stood by what the Faithful and Discreet slave had taught and defended the position.

    Mom attended the District Convention in the summer of 1962 when this "new light" was explained in a talk. Mom tells that after the convention, she had to go back to the "student" and explain that she (the student) had been correct and my Mom humbly took the blame for not understanding it correctly. I don't think this "student" ever progressed to baptism, but I recall my Mom saying how embarrassing it was for her.

    It is scriptures like this, Romans 13:1-7, that with basic reasoning skills the interpretation is quite clear. The fact is noteworthy that Christendom always knew who the superior authorities where when WTBTS did not.

    For me personally, this was one of those flip flops that I learned when but a child that threw a red flag up that raised concerns about Jehovah's Witnesses teachings. Unfortunately, it took me another 40 years to wake up:(

  • prologos
    prologos

    Terry, the wind the WT was tacking against was the right understanding the "spirit-directed truth" if you will, held by the main line churches. Perhaps launched by Rutherford to be CONTRARY to the Christian teaching.

    Of course tacking has nothing to do with finding your bearings, or trying the right direction by trial & error.

    Tacking is used to go against the wind, if that is necessary. a very effivient way to sail, it is faster than downwind.

    illustration mal apropos,--foot in mouth syndrom of Klein of Brooklyn.

  • Terry
    Terry

    The forced nature of this change sticks out as tampering like loose wires dangling from the steering column of a hotwired car.

    What seems so unnecessary to me about this twisting of scripture is how the GB totally ignored the example of the early church.

    All the early church fathers give clear testimony: Christians, despite their understood subjection to worldly rulers, refused to participate

    in the military. Period. End of sentence.

    WHY WASN'T THAT ENOUGH?

    Secondly, when they changed back again to the original understanding, the explanation is awkwardly explained with a profusion of blustery

    prose.

    I place two bad teachings above all the rest. Jesus had no beard and subjection to Superior Authorities.

    Neither of these "viewpoints" was a necessary effort and yet became pet beliefs.

    Both are clumsy, ham-handed explanations that fall apart with even the most casul examination.

    The current long-lived rule about no facial hair remains as the most absolutely indefensible one remaining.

  • Terry
    Terry

    I just noticed a hilarious typo error in my thread title! It is a mistake, but, it is not only true--it is funny!

  • Narcissistic Supply
    Narcissistic Supply

    Yeah they blow, no doubt.

  • SAHS
    SAHS
    “What is relative subjection?
    Here, let Jesus explain it
    Matthew 6:24

    King James Version (KJV)

    24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

    That sounds “relative”? How is that relative?”

    . . . .

    “From 1929 to 1962 the Watchtower’s own Navigator “perceived” the wrong course.”

    ================

    This can start to get somewhat confusing with all the different and self-conflicting viewpoints over time. I’m just trying to get this clear in my own mind (which can start to get a bit dyslexic and pickled with too much reading and sorting out).

    I believe you are saying that the WT’s view from 1929 to 1962 was incorrect – that incorrect view being that the superior authorities were Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

    That view was changed by the WT in 1962, whereby the superior authorities were the earthly secular rulers of the land but to be given relative subjection; i.e., obedience and subjection to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ were to always be given a higher priority in comparison to the earthly secular rulers when there was a conflict between the two.

    However, when you quote Matthew 6:24 about not ‘slaving for two masters,’ you seem to indicate that it must be exclusively either/or, which would seem to preclude the relative aspect between the two.

    Then you said: “Christians, despite their understood subjection to worldly rulers, refused to participate in the military. Period. End of sentence. WHY WASN'T THAT ENOUGH?”

    That would seem to imply the idea of relative subjection to earthly secular authorities – a subjection to such an extent which is “understood” to be to worldly rulers but which, ultimately, would be to a Christian’s spiritual rulers because, in the final analysis, a worldy ruler’s command to participate in the military would be refused.

    So, just to be clear, are you saying that ultimately the identity of the “superior authorities” are the earthly secular authorities but that a Christian’s subjection to them is to be in a relative sense; i.e., that such subjection to the earthly secular authorities is always to be superseded by that of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ? I just want to get what you’re saying clear in my own ( dyslexic, pickled) mind.

  • Terry
    Terry

    That view was changed by the WT in 1962, whereby the superior authorities were the earthly secular rulers of the land but to be given relative subjection; i.e., obedience and subjection to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ were to always be given a higher priority in comparison to the earthly secular rulers when there was a conflict between the two.

    However, when you quote Matthew 6:24 about not ‘slaving for two masters,’ you seem to indicate that it must be exclusively either/or, which would seem to preclude the relative aspect between the two.

    Thanks for seeking clarification on this.

    The GB were playing fast and loose with Romans when they changed it both the first and second time. Totally unnecessary was their adding the

    principle of "relative subjection." It is phony. That is what Matthew 6:24 is all about. There really is no realtivity about it. The writers of Watchtower articles like to bring artificial reasonings into their silliest doctrines to puff it out into greater complexity and importance than it deserves.

    Jesus words stick a pin in their inflated "principle" rather neatly, I thought!

    So, just to be clear, are you saying that ultimately the identity of the “superior authorities” are the earthly secular authorities but that a Christian’s subjection to them is to be in a relative sense; i.e., that such subjection to the earthly secular authorities is always to be superseded by that of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ?

    If we take a peek at the history of Christianity we see an objective change in the way Christians dealt with "service" to the state.

    Up until the time of Constantine, Christians refuse civil service and military service and it was black or white with them.

    Then, when Constantine came along all sympathetic to Christianity and he ended up on his death bed getting baptised the issue, for Christians, blurred into a gray area. The subjection issue actually DID BECOME RELATIVE in their collective mind!

    By baby steps and easy rationalizations, Christians started serving the state.

    A large portion of the book I'm writing deals with Christian conscience, conscientious objectors and the historical patterns of Christians vis a vis the military.

    Today it is the hard-nosed evangelicals who are pro Military!

  • compound complex
    compound complex

    Hi Terry:

    http://www.davasobel.com/

    Have you read Dava Sobel's Longitude?

    It came to mind as I read your interesting piece. She commented that a simple, cheap wristwatch could have steered the ancient mariners . . .

    There is a connection here!

    THANKS!

    CC

  • JakeM2012
    JakeM2012

    Compound Complex, a simple wrist watch? Interesting. At least a broken wrist watch that is stopped is accurate twice a day. Humm, a broken cheap wristwatch has more accuracy than Watchtower's navigators.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit