"Taking the "Lead" vs. "Leader"
The WT articles for the past 2 weeks were the typical every-3-months-or-so attempt at justifying the sovereignty of the JW popes, the governing body.
Aside from the usual specious reasoning and ridiculous assertions, I noted this:
The articles went through great semantic pains to emphasize that, for the JWs, Jesus is "the leader", while the GB are merely "those taking the lead".
What, exactly, is the difference between a "leader" vs. "one who is taking the lead"?
In what other sphere of human experience is such semantic pretzel logic even close to rational?
"I am not a truck driver, I am merely one who drives a truck."
"I am one who climbs mountains, but I am not a mountain climber."
"I am not a stamp collector, but I most definitely am one who collects stamps."
It's preposterously stupid. Anyone with the intelligence that God gave gravel should see right through this.
....yet 8 million JWs just lapped it up like it was of the profoundest depth.
^^^ exactly ^^^
A leader is one who is taking the lead. No ifs or buts.
Within the context if what the WT is explaining, it is as LoveUniHateExams states. A real leader is not a dictator, but for the Wt and the GB it is like that. They are attempting at presenting themselves as followers of the leader's directions, though we all know well how they really are and what they really do.
They justify whatever they tell people to do as "we're following what our leader, Jesus is saying", freeing them from responsibility and consequences of their actions and decisions.
It's like they're not even trying anymore. Two generations that are really one. A GB that takes the lead but doesn't supplant the leader.
I guess that's what happens when you have a group that cannot be subjected to any kind of scrutiny or criticism. What's the incentive to try to have your statements make sense? The sheep will lap it up regardless.
Wordplay of those who want it both ways.
JWs have human leaders in the form of a top-down hierarchy, emanating from the Governing Body on down to the local body of elders. This leadership more pronounced than in most churches and denominations. It is enforced leadership...those who do not obey the leaders are subject to secret backroom trials and extreme penalties that people in most religions do not experience.
Everyone at my hall seemed to think it was awe inspiring that while we have "those taking the lead" we certainly don't have any leaders among except Jesus. Not sure how that makes any sense. It is literally the same exact word. SMH
Taking the lead vs leader are very different concepts.
Imagine a squad of soldiers: They have a leader who is the commander. At times, someone who isn't the "leader" may take the lead and be the one in front of the squad leading the way but it doesn't make them the leader of the squad (the commander).
Simon, don't start writing for the WT, you know how they love their illustrations. LOL
good illustration Simon, but wt has it's [spirit appointed] commanders, if you try to take the lead, while you think there is a lapse in their command (like their grasp of scriptures)' the appointed leaders will try you for treason.