*** w58 8/1 478 Questions from Readers *** Questions from Readers One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States. We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones. Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake.
Is the WTS returning to this position of not disfellowshipping for taking blood?
Interesting quote, Libby. I noted these seemingly fair statements:
We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge.
something for Jehovah God to determine himself
It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge
But note what else is slipped in here
view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.
That means restrictions, doesn't it? So their position in 1958 was not quite the kindly position it might at quick glance have seemed.
They're like rational legalists, talking out of both sides of the mouth at once.
Cheers, Ozzie
"You can know the law by heart, without knowing the heart of it" Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace?
It's interesting how different points catch our attention. This is what stood out to me:
"However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them."
Obviously this was changed at some point and congregations WERE told to disfellowship for these reasons.
Now it seems there is a "qualified" return to saying they don't disfellowship for this offense, even though we all know the skirting they are using is that of "disassociation by action".
Anyway, it was news to me that the wts at one time in the past so boldly said they don't disfellowship for taking blood.
