Field Service Privilege Can Be Taken Away Due to Hairstyle and Tight Pants???

by Wild_Thing 33 Replies latest jw friends


    No one can stop your from preaching anything - Even a DFed person can preach albeit not with the JW in their regular arrangements.

    Were you to preach [in the name of the JW movement] and submitted a FS report - that report would not be accepted by bro Secretary though - you may be told to keep the report for your own record.

    Why would anyone want to continue slaving for the tower ? And what would your pitch be anyway ?

  • oldskool

    Field service classified as an "inalienable right" is quite bizarre. Apologies for the generalization, but it sounds like common mainstream millennial social media jargon channeled through a JW context.

    As I recall field service was classified by the WTS as a privilege, responsibility, and duty. Failure to be allowed to participate in this activity resulted in a loss of salvation for those either to lazy to participate or prohibited from participation.

    Dress code enforcement within the JW community always extended into personal "off the clock" behavior. I see nothing new in this whatsoever.

  • Doubting Bro
    Doubting Bro

    This is a big change. So, I've seen unbaptized publishers be removed but I've never heard of someone baptized not allowed to be a publisher. How is this going to work? Hmm, I see some metrosexual suits in my future!!!

  • undercover
    If a guy dresses as a "metrosexual" just going down to the local Piggly-Wiggly to pick up a case of PBR...

    That's funny as hell... though somewhat mixed up. I imagine a guy who goes to the Piggly-Wiggly to pick up a case of PBR is going to be dressed more like the guys from Florida Georgia Line than a 'metrosexual'. Your 'metrosexual' types are going to Whole Foods or Trader Joe's and purchasing a case of Pinot Grigio

    But, I digress... your overall statement is correct from what I recollect. I remember guys getting sent home to shave (one brother was told to take one step closer to his razor), several of us were counciled over the style of overcoat we were, or weren't I should say, wearing. But to bar someone one from participating in the preaching work based on overall grooming is a new wrinkle.

    I think there's a connection to the preaching work becoming more robotic than personal. As they move more and more to the literature cart, all a dub has to do is stand there, and answer questions... meaning, all they have to do is stand there. First impression is important, so instead of freedom of choice in style or personality, they want a bunch of Stepford Wives to man the carts. Dress in cult approved attire, your hair and jewelry all approved by the cult wardrobe dept, and you stay on script, repeating the cult mantra, never deviating from the approved playbook.

  • LisaRose

    It does seem like a change to me. Historically If you were on reproof for some major tresspass you wouldn't be allowed to comment at the Kingdom Hall but you would be allowed to go out door to door.

    It seems very strange that somebody who had an adulterous affair a month ago could go out door to door, but somebody who's only sin is being fashion forward cannot.

  • millie210
    This is NOT - repeat NOT - new. When has it ever been an "inalienable" right - and who ever came up with that overblown adjective to describe Witnesses having rights?

    It was me Steve. I was the one who was stunned by it and wrote the post.

    Thanks WildThing for being curious and wanting a discussion on what this means exactly, I am enjoying seeing the different perspectives on this.

    The reason I feel this is new is the following:

    Several years ago a woman who was disfellowhipped. She had been a pioneer and said she was "going out in service anyhow". The elders bristled with this effrontery and were sure they would put a stop to that!
    They called the Service Desk and much to their surprise were told -
    Leave. Her. Alone.

    They were told that the preaching comission was directly from the scriptures as was her baptism and that her disfellowshipping restricted her from congregation activities only. So she could not check out a territory or meet with the group. She could however recieve her literature from the literature counter and go out in service on her own.

    So seeing that the elders are being directed in writing to obstruct that right in people because of dress or hairstyle seems like things are going in a new direction,

    People who are disfellowshipped are not re-baptized upon reinstatement. That baptism supercedes the discipline. A person being a minister was put in that same category.

  • steve2

    If the written directive expressly states that clothing styles worn in non-Witnessing activities can be the basis for refusing brothers and sisters in otherwise good standing from engaging in field service when they ARE dressed appropriately, then yes, this is new. No murmur of argument from me. 

    Does someone have a link to the actual directive itself or even a scanned copy? Thanks.

  • millie210

    Hey steve!

    Did you read the letter? I would appreciate your take on it.

  • steve2

    Hi to you Millie!

    No, haven't seen the letter and, given what other posters have said about it, I am keen to read it.

    Any links to it? It's not listed under Related Content.

  • oldskool
    They called the Service Desk and much to their surprise were told -
    Leave. Her. Alone.
    Not sure where this occurred, guessing US. My first thought is WTS protecting against a lawsuit for inhibiting freedom of speech. Not a high risk threat, but the WTS knows the legal territory well.

    The US is a country where the right to obnoxiously protest funerals was upheld as constitutional. Those that get in the way loose money in court.

    Again, I don't see anything unusual in this. I don't think the WTS and local Elders in particular have ever shown a great ability to handle the particulars of internal judicial affairs with much consistency. Outside of org HQ there has always been some real sloppy work going on by the r&f amateurs they put in charge.

Share this