This morning the JW lady (P) and her daughter (M) came over for a second follow-up visit. However, this is the first time M has been present for any extensive conversation. I'm glad she showed up, though, because some major things happened, and I think if there is any breakthrough forthcoming it will be terrific to see 2 in one family get out at the same time.
I asked P if she had gotten my message about wanting to have the particular prophecy by Russell that was alluded to in the Proclaimers book on p. 60--the prophecy that there would be a great war in Europe. She had only gotten it lately, so wasn't really prepared, but said she'd look further.
Rehashed a little of 607 BC. P is not adamant about this date; she is adamant that the Gentile Times must have started then, to work out to 1914. We had a good discussion, nonetheless; I reminded her that until 607 could be shown to be the fall of Jersualem, all the rest of her chronology would not make a difference (to me, anyway).
She told me that the things that convinced her that the witnesses were right were that 1) they honored God's name 2) they did preaching and 3) assorted doctrines that are not held by Christendom... dates and early teachings did not really matter to her so much.
I showed her the picture of the pyramid of Gizeh in the Proclaimers book (p 120, I think). The caption says that for 35 years the WT taught that the Egyptian pyramids were used in corroborating Bible chronology. 35 years! I pointed out that the teaching didn't get tossed for at least 10 years after Russell died (it was tossed in 1928; Russell died in 1916.) How could any Christian, any Bible-believing Christian, gloss over this doctrine for so long? How could it ever have been introduced at any time as a Christian doctrine? She had to admit that there was no place in the Bible for this teaching, ever.
But she defended the early WT's teachings as being very basic and early, so of course would need correction. I pointed out that I don't know much about auto mechanics, but if I took a class for ladies in how to change oil I would not by that bit of knowledge have the authority to write authoritative manuals about car repair! I said, Russell, if he were truly wise, would recognize that he was still early in faith and was not a Bible expert. He was barely over a spiritual awakening when he started publishing and declaring doctrines and "truths".
I mentioned that organ transplants were forbidden to witnesses for many years--considered cannibalism of a sort until later that doctrine got dropped. This was not an early teaching, it was added later, after the WT had matured. Why did they add this teaching, and then later drop it? (I was flying by the seat of my pants here, I may not have had all the details about this issue right, but overall it is correct.) She was silent.
So here we went. I asked her if she held all JW teachings, 100%. She replied, all of them--all the ones she's heard of, anyway. I asked her, what would happen if she found a doctrine--something new, or something that she hadn't heard before--that she could never accept as being Biblical? --And let's assume that all studying and research about it has already been done, and the teaching is totally unreconcilable with scripture.... what would she say? what would she do?
It was hard for her to imagine it, or maybe she just didn't want to be put into a position where she would say in front of her daughter that she would leave the Witnesses, so I proposed a "positive" situation for her: if a Catholic stood up and objected to the trinity doctrine as unbiblical, even in a room full of Catholic bishops, and were given the choice of either sticking with Catholicism or leaving... what should that Catholic do? (Leave! she replied.) I pointed out that the decision would be scoffed at by the bishops, but lauded by Witnesses. She replied that neither punishment nor reward should be the motivation, but simply whether the teaching was Biblical. I said, well, we're on the same page!
So I repeated to her my question: if you come to a crossroads, and must choose between the Bible and some new teaching that isn't Biblical (I offered here, like, what if the pyramid teaching started to come back in little pieces in the WT?) what would you choose? Now she said, very firmly, "The Bible!"
Here I paused and thought quickly. I had planned to go into the FDS information here with good guidance from "Captives of a Concept". But thru this conversation and especially now, I looked into her eyes and saw that she was being honest in her statement. She wasn't really parroting to me. That she had taken rather a big breath, and made a commitment to herself and God (in front of her daughter and me) with that kind of a firm statement. I could not let this pass.
I took a deep breath and said, "I'm going to go out on a limb. Waaaaay out on a limb. In fact, I think I will probably fall off the limb and curse myself for going out on it." (They laughed.) First, I reminded her of the statement by the Episcopal bishop from last week, where he stated to the conservatives who were planning to split over the ordination of a practicing gay bishop: "If you must choose between schism and heresy, always choose heresy". I explained that unity is a very important concept, esp. if the body of Christ is to be united. I explained that the bishop had made this statement because church teachings of the past had been modified, and that we don't know all things already (basically, the very defense she gave for the WT), it is safer to go with unity. But does this mean that unity should be followed at all costs? If that is so, then theology really means nothing at all. (Thankfully, she wasn't arguing at all, but nodding her head [though reluctantly, I think]).
She answered, "Well, if the WT has said anything like that, that would put them above God's word, then I would have to leave them." (You must know what is coming, right? With an open door like that??)
I stopped and looked straight into her eyes. I said, "I've never told a Witness this before, not even "J" (my JW neighbor [whom she knows]). I want to tell you about a court trial in Scotland in 1954, and what was recorded under oath by Frederick Franz and by Haydon Covington (former WT lawyer)."
And I told them both! I explained briefly that Franz and Haydon had admitted under oath that it was required for Witnesses to follow them, even if they were found to be false prophets! That if witnesses objected to false prophecy, they would be disfellowshiped, and be considered worthy of death! I said, "When I originally read these things, I nearly fell off my chair! There's absolutely NO reconciliation between this and what the Bible commands about never following false prophets. In legal court cases in Israel, the Bible required 2 witnesses; however, only ONE witnesses (the failed prophecy) was necessary to convict a false prophet. This underscores the severity of the view of false prophecy. Jesus spoke MANY times about bewaring of false prophets! They are not to be trusted."
She started thumbing thru her Bible, with an anxious look and furrowed brow , and I said, "Look, while you're doing that, I'll get you the Scotland trial references so that you can look them up if you like!"
Off I went and printed off pages I have on file here. (Precisely, I selected the text from the documents off of this page: http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040312/DOCTRINE/10527012) and printed it, avoiding any other editorials on the page.)
I came back and said that I used a phrase I recalled from the trial (promulgated false prophecy) as well as the word paragraph in order to get a page with references for the document (this is true--I didn't do it this morning, however; I did it a while back!)
I actually read the 3+ pages aloud to them both. There was no interruptions from either of them. They were silent when I was done. I turned to them and said, "Perhaps you have another way of getting around this, but to me it seems extremely clear that the WT leaders taught people must follow them even if they were false prophets... and that they expect unity at all costs, even if against the Bible... and neither of these things is Biblical. "
More silence, with some very concerned looks.
I added, "P, I'm not trying to import a new doctrine on to you here. I'm not talking theology. You may have learned some very valuable things as a Witness, and I'm not saying that this disproves any of them. I'm only saying that as far as Christian leadership goes, they are people I cannot follow if I believe the Bible. You can still honor the name of God, still believe in the importance of preaching work for the kingdom... but you truly must reconsider the authority of the WT as God's channel."
Finally, P regrouped. She smiled and said that she would look into things. She would double check... and it looked like this moment would be the end, except an almost condescending attitude began to develop. However, she did restate again that the WT must teach whatever is Biblical, or she would have to leave.
I quickly asked her, what if the WT teaches something in their publications, explicitly against the Bible? She smirked almost at the thought. I said, "Who do you believe is your mediator?" And she looked at me as if I were stupid. "Jesus!" and off she rattled the Bible verses to support this view.
"What if I showed you that there were another mediator beside Jesus?" I asked. She shook her head and looked at me with sympathy ('the poor, confused Christian'). "No, really! If I could show you that someone else were the mediator besides Jesus, and prove it Biblically, could you accept it?" Now she reached her hands across the table and put them on mine in a sympathetic manner, and said, "I guess we will have to take this up some other time. The Bible is very clear about this and..."
I pulled out my hands and laid them on hers, gently, looked in her eyes and said, "But P, I was tricking you. It is the WT's own teaching that says that Jesus is not your mediator." She stared at me, but she didn't pull her hands away, so I continued, "Since around 1970 or 1980 the WT has been putting small bits of this teaching into its magazine, but the fact is that they now teach that Jesus is only the mediator for 144,000... while everyone else's mediator is the 144,000!! According to the WT itself, Jesus is NOT YOUR MEDIATOR."
She was frozen. I still had my hands on hers, and my eyes were still locked into hers. "P, I'm going to go out on another limb here. Waaaaaay out, but I guess this is the day for long limbs. I think you were really, really honest when you said that you wanted to follow God above all else, and to follow the Bible at any cost... and maybe this is why you ended up here...
"P, I'm not throwing doctrine at you here. You told me many times that you were searching for God, and had hit against a lot of walls in Catholicism and Protestantism, and so on. You found some good things in the Witnesses, like respect for the Bible. But in the end, they do NOT really have the authority they claim, and I think God wants you to see that now. Maybe you're in a "Saul-Paul" kind of situation here... I don't think God isn't condemning you for not knowing all of the truth right now; I really think He is trying to bless you, because He is looking at your heart and He sees that you really, truly want to serve Him at any cost." I looked at her daughter, M. "I'm sure you have a heart after God, too, if you are like your mother--you know, like mother, like daughter!" M smiled, embarassed.
Finally, after another pause, P gave me a quick nod, with a grim kind of smile, and said, "I am going to investigate everything you have shown me."
I quickly replied, "If I am wrong, then it will be important for me to know it--I don't want to be believing slander, you know!"
So I gave her the printouts (btw, I set my printer so that webpages are not automatically printed whenever I print out a website; this helps prevent people from dismissing out of hand the information if they can see any "apostate"-type name on the footer) and also information from the Scottish Archives site so she can investigate it herself (maybe order something?). She said it would probably take longer than a week, because of the research, before she can get back to me.
I hope I will see them both again... and I hope that they will have been able to find enough information to support their decision to leave. Things look good... but there is no guarantee with the human heart.
I have a hope that this conversation might be repeated again... with my JW neighbor as P. That is my very big hope.
Well, my head has stopped spinning. Typing can be good therapy, I guess!
bebu