See Part 1
Several serious adjustments to the Witnesses have come following intense criticism from those opposed. I have several times acknowledged this. For example, regarding the change in congregation discipline, I wrote: “Look, if disfellowshipped ones accumulate to the point where even Norway starts to complain, maybe it is time for a reexamination. The leaven must still be removed, and is, but the new norm—is is overdue?—is to go back from time to time and reexamine specific policies of discipline. Some have been refashioned.”
Same thing with revised policies on child sexual abuse. It came about largely in response to opponents of the faith. I acknowledged that, too: “Well, it only took a landslide of legal threats around the world to force their hand on this,” opposers grumbled, as they went on to claim credit. Why not give them the credit? Likely there is something to it. Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this.”
Is the recent adjustment on blood transfusion also in response to accumulating legal obstacles? Likely it is so, at least to a degree. For my money, I’m willing to give those critics gratitude. Their challenges have resulted in better policies on several fronts.
Why have the Witnesses themselves not acknowledged these outside forces? It may be because those outside forces instigating actions against them are not interested in reform, but only in destruction of the faith. This has become quite clear in recent months. They demand “reform.” They gain it on various fronts. They’re not happy about it. They’re furious that the Witnesses have “dodged a bullet.” They prepare another one. There is no easing of hostility whatsoever from the ex community.
It’s hard not to conclude that most have simply become the “fighters against God,” that Gamaliel cautioned about in the first century. (Acts 5:39) They may not have started out that way, but immersion in the hypercritical, unforgiving, finger-pointing environment inevitably rubs off on them. This conclusion might be different were there some alternative highlighting the essential teachings that Witnesses are known for: Name of God, Jesus not himself God,, Kingdom is a real government, need to preach, no immortal soul, resurrection to paradise earth, explanation for why God allows evil and suffering, and so forth.
Were that the case, one might simply switch to that alternative source and abandon the “repressive” one. That there is no such alternative source suggests that maybe overshooting the mark from time to time is part of the package. After all, recognition that Acts 15:29 should include transfusion, even if that inclusion might result in death on occasion, was first made in the 1940s. At that time, ending one’s life so that one’s country might prevail was deemed the highest honor—nobody was ever criticized for that—and many millions of people did it. Times change. Today, large swaths of the world manage to avoid the wholesale sacrifice of life towards one’s country. The backdrop changes. Witness policies change too. Call it reform if one wishes.
With no alternative source existing for furthering essential teachings, how can one not think that calls for reform on the ex critics part are but a sham? Reforms happen and their ferocity only increases. You would think at least some would be placated, even come around. Maybe that will happen in time, but there is little sign of it thus far.
To the extent recent changes are a response to critics, does this not make the faith purely a human thing? I don’t know that holy spirit requires one to be unresponsive to outside circumstances. Hopefully, it would equip you to navigate them adroitly. If you’re going to be opposed, you want it to be for the same reason Christians were opposed in the first century. If you’re being opposed on the basis of something else, maybe it’s time to look at that something else. Even if that something else involves keeping God’s requirements, you may be able to adjust it so it cannot be framed as others telling you what to do. If that can be done, what’s not to like?
****** The bookstore
Leave a Reply