by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I can foresee that here in this congregation in the deep southern U.S., the local elders will feel that they must respond to such a decree from the GB. They will actively consider which of the brothers is most in touch with "his feminine side," and which sister has the shortest hair. Then they will proceed to flex their muscles, which are not in their brains.
Me? I'm with Tony on this one. Give the "boys" some space. What's to prove?
I think the WTS has always sent the message to gay people: "we hate you, you're wrong, change or leave".
Agreed. Plus, I believe the WTS sends this message to hetero and bi people, too. The only way for them to stop giving this message to anyone is regular FS and meeting attendance.
Only just caught up on this topic so apologies if I am repeating anything anyone else has said.
Firstly I think Simon has a point - a conservative Christian sect making some internal noise about clothing styles and blurred gender stereotypes is hardly front page news. In that context I would agree that the import of this could be overblown compared to other aspects of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
I think that the real issues with what is going on in this CO delivered "counsel" are far more insidious and less obvious. I note that they have been touched on by a few so apologies again if I am raking over old coals.
1 - CO delivery. The first problem is this is delivered by the CO to the elders. Anyone with experience of being an elder knows this is a great way to disseminate something which they would never want to be seen to be making a rule on. Elders hear the words but don't see the outline. The interpretation and implementation is left up to each BoE and rarely followed up with anything that presents clear direction for the BoE to follow. Perhaps there will be a follow up letter or even some kind of WT but right now this info will filter through the bodies globally and be implemented as they see fit with no consistency or even any guidelines on which to refer.
2 - Lack of transparency. This matter and the potential for it meaning a person is not long able to go on the ministry is completely unknown to the majority of the congregation. How will someone know? I expect individuals will be talked to and perhaps there will be a flurry of poorly delivered local needs items but there will be no possibility of reference to some publication or letter as nothing exists.
3 - Lack of analogous precedent. I can think of no other circumstance where a baptised member of the congregation is not permitted to go on the ministry. Individuals may have restrictions on answering, participation in the school and so on, but the organisation has been very careful not to prevent ones going in the ministry if they wish - it's a command from Jesus.
Fashion styles and fads come and go, the organisation does constantly remind people about not reflecting the "spirit of the world" but never has threatened some kind of sanction or disciplinary process. Now someone can be hounded, without any warning or transparent benchmark, on the basis of their style of clothing or (worse), potentially by their mannerisms.
No other behaviour by a baptised Witness carries such a sanction. Getting reproved, marrying out of the lord, being a paedophile for goodness sake - no of it prevents ones from going on the ministry. What is is about this matter that scares them so much?
4 - No benchmark. There is zero guidance on what is acceptable or unacceptable here. Is it clothing? Is it mannerisms? Is it an attitude? There are no examples of what the organisation considers to be unacceptable. Does being groomed or wearing a modern, slim fitting, tailored suit mean you are wearing the wrong clothes or a homosexual?
It promotes a stereotype that somehow all gays can be identified by the way they look. Fair enough, this is hardly surprising, but the organisation has been leaning towards principles for years now after having been burnt with silly rules. Now they are moving back to unquantifiable rules implemented in a haphazard way.
To be fair, the sanction of not be able to go in the ministry is only supposed to be used in the case of one who blatantly and deliberately ignores counsel. The problem is that there is zero way that both elders and the "victim" can know what is acceptable or not acceptable. It's down to local interpretation.
This, in itself, is not unprecedented within the organisation - but to have something that gives top down approval to being able to crack down on someone for simply being themselves, with no transparency or controls, is yet pretty glaring example of unwarranted high control tactics that should be part of the overall picture of this organisation as a cult.
Compared to giving up relationships, giving up certain styles of clothing seems less serious doesn't it?
I hear you Simon, we should be up in arms about WT homophobia period.
But I guess for me its an added injustice that someone can be persecuted for their demenor gay or straight.
I would go along with the assertion the at the JWS elders have always had discriminatory look down upon any male that had effeminate mannerisms or was suspected to be gay, irregardless to how they dressed.
The JWS religion is very much an old boys club full of power seeking misogynistic judgmental prejudicial men.
Woman are weakly degraded, children are looked down upon or disrespected, so from that perspective where does effeminate males or masculinized females fit into this structured social environment ?
Nowhere really, that's why most of this people of this kind eventually leave the JWS organization.
I think its part of the overall assumption that these people will eventually come out the closet as they say and in due process taint the image of the organization as a prevailing result .
All the JWS men that I knew who were gay eventually came out, some had even married JW woman which resulted in a divorce.
Sorry if I'm going off topic a little ....... Fink
He blamed Yoga pants as being inappropriate attire, not to be worn by true Christians,
Again that dated old dotard of a donut AM III gets it wrong.
Yoga pants are flared and roomy. He's thinking of leggings.
Anyone fancy a whip round so we can send Gok Wan to the GB for a fasion lesson?😃
we should be up in arms about WT homophobia period.
Yes, that is the real issue IMO but again, "conservative christian group considers homosexuality wrong" is hardly news to anyone, let alone headline news.
It's simply not where the battle lines are right now. Look at Kim Davis and the bakeries. It's all about whether they should be allowed to discriminate against people who are not even part of their church. Being able to set their beliefs which include being judgmental and discriminatory within a church is a given.
It doesn't make it fair or good ... it's just a fact.
Given all that, trying to campaign over some internal dress code seems pointless. Whether or not you think it is more than just dress code is irrelevant - that is how it's been described and I think you'd have a hard time separating the nuances from the obvious.
The only thing separating JWs from many other churches is the shunning. That is something worth emphasizing - that yes, like many other churches they are unwelcoming to gays. But unlike other churches when a kid comes out they face special challenges within the WTS because they cannot simply leave because the beliefs are incompatible with who they are - they face complete loss of friends and family as a result.
But the world doesn't really care - there are more important things to worry about and far worse stories of injustice. No one cares that the Amish shun people or a bunch of idiots drink cyanide laced cool-aide other than for morbid curiosity.
The Governing Body is following the same course as Hitler in their campaign to round up all the gays and put a pink triangle on them and sent them off to work camps. In fact they resemble the Inquisition back in the day when the church ruled:
Well this is actually great. If you want to be excused from field service without it being announced to the congregation just wear some tight pants or a revealing dress. This is a brilliant excuse/method to fade.
May I suggest a suitable field service outfit:
